IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10212 of 2005 BABU LAL PANDEY Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajey Kumar, Advocate For the B.S.E.B. : Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma, Advocate Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Brajesh Verma, Advocate ----------- 6 18.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is seeking quashing of Annexure – 5 dated 24.06.2005, by virtue of which respondents Electricity Board while exercising power under Rule 139 (c ) of the Bihar Pension Rules, has decided to award punishment of permanent deduction of pension by 5%. Petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2002, from the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer (Operation) of Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Station at Kanti, Muzaffarpur. It is his contention that all through his service career, there was never any proceeding initiated against him or any order of punishment passed. The present problem arose after his retirement. A couple of months after retirement on 01.03.2002, a communication which is a kind of show cause contained in Annexure – 1 came to be issued to the petitioner. Some clarification was sought from him based on an audit objection. Petitioner duly replied and offered explanation on the audit objection which was considered by the 2 respondents, but it did not satisfy them. It was in this background that the authorities in their wisdom to decided to invoke power under Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules and 5% deduction of pension on a permanent basis came to be issued contained in Annexure – 5. The primary contention of the petitioner based on a plethora of judicial decision in this regard is that at no point of time any departmental proceeding was held against the petitioner in which any kind of finding came to be recorded which could be said to be of a kind which can be termed as ‘grave misconduct’ or the ‘service not being thoroughly satisfactory’. In absence of any finding of the above kind recorded in a departmental proceeding during the course or period of service of the petitioner with the respondents the present method or methodology cannot be invoked or utilized. The respondents in absence of any material finding against the petitioner in any departmental proceeding merely on the basis of an audit objection, after grant of regular pension on superannuation cannot impose punishment on the show cause issued to him. The Court has examined the various evidences and the pleadings in support of the submission made by the petitioner. It has also looked into the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents Electricity Board. There does not seem to be any 3 difference of opinion on the basic fact that the present order of punishment contained in Annexure – 5, has come to be passed on a show cause issued to the petitioner after his retirement and sanction of final pension. In other words, the order of punishment has come to be passed not based on the service record of the petitioner or any adverse finding or punishment awarded to him during his course of service. If that is so, then the exercise of power by the respondents under Rule 139(c) is no legal exercise. The contention of the petitioner in this regard seems to be correct and supported by the decisions on such point rendered in the case of Muneshwar Prasad Sinha Versus The State of Bihar, 2004(3) PLJR 708; Chandreshwar Prasad Sinha Verus The State of Bihar (2001)9 SCC 369; Sharda Prasad Sinha Versus B.S.E.B. 2005(2) PLJR 634. In view of the legal position which is no longer in doubt, this court is of the considered opinion that the method and methodology adopted by the respondents while invoking their power under Rule 139(c ) does not meet the requirement of law laid down in this regard. In that view of the matter, the Court has only one option that to quash the order dated 24.06.2005 contained in Annexure – 5. The writ application stands allowed. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)