IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9740 of 2002 RAM BABU SINGH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector-cum-Conducting Officer, Muzaffarpur 4. The Block Development Officer, Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur ----------- 8. 19.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. While the petitioner was in service on the post of Panchayat Sevak in Gaighat Block in the year 1993 on allegation of alleged defalcation of money for Government schemes, Gaighat P.S. Case No. 98 of 1993 was instituted against the petitioner and departmental proceedings were also initiated. He was placed under suspension on 14.6.1993. On 23.10.1997 suspension was revoked as neither did the criminal case conclude nor the departmental proceedings initiated in pursuance of suspension. In this manner, the petitioner retired on 28.2.1999 during the pendency of the departmental proceedings. He then filed CWJC No. 10663 of 2001 for release of his post retrial dues. The Respondents took an objection with regard to the pendency of the criminal prosecution as also the departmental proceedings. This Court on 10.12.2001 noticed that it was incumbent upon the department to conclude the proceedings at an early date. The contention of the petitioner was that after his superannuation he had no knowledge of the proceedings and in respect of which he submitted his show cause on the charge sheet given to him earlier. The departmental proceedings were directed 2 to be concluded within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that he had filed his reply to the memo of charges while he was in service and had demanded certain documents. No notice was given to him after his retirement of the proceedings. The Conducting Officer had issued several notice to the Respondent no. 4 to produce oral and documentary evidence but Respondent no. 4 did not comply with the same. Due to non-cooperation of the Respondent, the departmental proceedings remained pending. No specific dates were communicated to him of the holding of the departmental proceedings after the order of this Court in CWJC No. 10663 of 2001. That there were no formal orders converting the proceedings into under Section 43(b) of the Bihar pension Rules after his superannuation. The Respondents have filed a counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit. It is their case that notice was issued to the petitioner after the order of this Court in CWJC No. 10663 of 2001 at the last known address, which was received by one Niraj Kumar. The petitioner was, therefore, fully aware of the proceedings and chose not to participate in the same. That the punishment was minor in nature and that this Court had directed expeditious conclusion of the departmental proceedings. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is dated 18.3.2002. He has been held guilty of defalcation of Rs. 1,28,064/-. Nothing was to be payable beyond the subsistence allowance for 3 the period of suspension. Promotions given to him were declared invalid and that he was not entitled to any promotion. That the amount defalcated was to be recovered from his payable retiral benefits along with interest. The departmental proceedings were initiated in 1993 while the petitioner was in service. He filed his reply to the same and sought certain documents also. It is his specific pleading in paragraph 13, 14, 15 of the writ application that departmental proceedings remained inconclusive because of the laches of the Department when Respondent no. 4 refused to furnish any documentary or oral evidence in support of the charges and despite orders of the Conducting Officer, documents requested for by the petitioner were not made available and the Inquiring Officer was frequently changed. Dealing with his averment in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the Respondents stated that they are either matters of record or required no comments. The contention of the petitioner that the departmental proceedings remained inconclusive for no fault of his when the department did not supply him documents, did not produce oral or documentary evidence during the enquiry stands admitted by the Respondents. On the issue of notice to the petitioner after his superannuation at the last known address, the petitioner disputes such service of notice to urge that he does not have any relative by the name of Niraj Kumar and he is not aware who is the person to whom the notice was served. The supplementary counter affidavit 4 in this regard is hardly of any help as it simply states that one Niraj Kumar received the notice on the peon book. Surely if the petitioner did not appear and the notice had been validly served as contended on behalf of the Respondents, further notice could have been served either through registered post or newspaper publication. That was not done. This is a standard mode of notice in such situations. The justification of the Respondents that they were in hurry in view of the order of this Court to conclude the departmental proceedings does not impress this Court. This Court on the earlier occasion never directed to complete the departmental proceeding in a manner contrary to law. The fallacy of the manner in which the Respondents have proceeded is more apparent from paragraph 5 of their counter affidavit where they have treated the proceedings as one for a minor punishment under Rule 55 A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules to urge that only a notice to show cause was required before passing final orders. The order of punishment withholding the pension or any part thereof of a retired employee cannot amount to a minor punishment. It is for that reason that under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules the sanction of the State Government is necessary. In the evening of his life to a Government employee his pension is the only source of income. Deduction of any amount therefrom shall have serious consequences for him. This Court rejects the argument of the petitioner that 5 departmental proceedings against him could not have continued in absence of specific order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. In view of the fact that departmental proceedings were initiated while he was in service and no formal order is required for its extension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The order of suspension dated 18.3.2002 is spent force as far back as item no. 2 is concerned. This Court, therefore, holds that it requires no interference in view of his superannuation. In so far as punishment at item 1 & 3 are concerned, the order being held to be bad in law, is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to his full salary for the period of suspension and deductions, if any, made under the order from his pension shall be reimbursed to him within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)