IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1564 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7977 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No. 7353 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1564 of 2011 ====================================================== Sri Narayan Ram, son of Late Govind Ram, Resident of Mohalla-Uparadih, P.O.-Chand Chaura, P.S. Civil Lines, District-Gaya. .... .... Appellant-Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman, the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 4. The Accounts Officer (Pension)-cum-Inspection Officer, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 21-10-2011 Interlocutory Application No. 7353 of 2011: Delay of three days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Patna High Court LPA No.1564 of 2011 (2) dt.21-10-2011 2 / 3 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.1564 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th July 2011 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 7977 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, a retired employee of the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board, has been, under order dated 23rd March 2011, visited with the punishment of forfeiture of 25% of pension. The aforesaid punishment has been imposed pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding and the finding that the appellant had been negligent in passing over the receipt book which was utilized for defrauding the Board to the extent of Rs.5,57,153/-. Challenge to the order of forfeiture of pension has been upheld by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that there was no allegation of lack of good faith against the appellant. Besides, the disciplinary enquiry after retirement from service was not maintainable. Neither of the aforesaid contentions appeals to us. At the outset, we may note that although there was a charge of complicity against the appellant, the same could not be proved for tangible evidence. Nevertheless, it cannot be held that the appellant had acted in good faith. It is indisputable that the appellant did act in contravention of the rules in parting away with the receipt book, which action of the appellant led to a loss of exchequer of the Board to the extent of Rs.5,57,153/-. The forfeiture of the part of pension is, therefore, justified. The contention that the appellant could not have been Patna High Court LPA No.1564 of 2011 (2) dt.21-10-2011 3 / 3 3 proceeded against after he reached the age of superannuation is not supported by appropriate pleadings. The issue was not raised in the writ petition nor is it raised in the Letters Patent Appeal either. In absence of necessary pleadings the contention cannot be countenanced. No other contention is raised before us. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)