IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1300 of 2004 Sakaldeep Singh, S/o Late Radha Krishna Singh, Resident of village Dhabauli, P.S. Saur Bazar, District Saharsa. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-cum- Secretary Department of Water Resources, government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department, Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. ………. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rabindra Nath Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Prakash Varma, Advocate 6. 23.06.2010 Annexure 11 and Annexure-15 dated 8.4.2003 and 8.11.2003 respectively are under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of Annexure-11, the respondent authority has withheld 100% pension and leave- encashment of the petitioner as a major punishment in exercise of power under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The appeal filed against the said order has also been rejected by Annexure-15 and, therefore, the present writ application. The short background to the present dispute is - 2 - that the petitioner was a Head Clerk posted in the office of the Land Acquisition Officer, Saharasa and was found having committed certain acts of omission and commission in disbursement of compensation to the land holders. He was placed under suspension and departmental enquiry was ordered. Initially enquiry could not be proceed on account of bifurcation of the State. After the bifurcation, a new enquiry officer was appointed, proceeding was conducted and finding of guilt with regard to the some of the charges was recorded. The finding of the equiry officer became the foundational fact for invoking powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. A show cause was issued to the petitioner to which he did respond but his explanation not having been found satisfactory, the impugned order contained in Annexure-11 came to be passed. Against the order of punishment dated 7.4.2003 contained in Annexure-11 petitioner decided to move the Court in a writ application. The Court instead of deciding the matter on merits allowed the petitioner to file an appeal. The appeal was filed, which was considered by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary and the same came to be - 3 - rejected as would be reflected from the order dated 8.11.2003 contained as Annexure-15. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment is not only harsh and excessive but not inconsonance with the findings of the enquiry officer. Petitioner has not been held guilty of the charges which were pressed against him. In view of the above, withholding of pension of almost 100% is uncalled for. The other submission on behalf of the petitioner is that his appeal has been rejected on a technical ground by the Commissioner that it has not been rooted through the proper forum and, therefore, it cannot be entertained and adjudicated on its merits. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the principle laid down in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 has not been followed by the respondents in the present case. Learned counsel representing the State has supported the decision taken by the respondents in the - 4 - given facts and circumstances of the case. They have given a long narration of events which were the background under which the inquiry had to be conducted against the petitioner. It is the case of the State that all the persons posted at the Land Acquisition Officer at Saharsa including the present petitioner who happened to be the Head Clerk got together and have ripped the public exchequer of money by indulging in all kinds of wrongful act in disbursement of compensation for land acquisition. Payments have been made by cheques which were bearer in nature, proper identification of beneficiary has not made and time barred applications were entertained and forwarded to the Court of Additional District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. Of all the charges which were brought against the petitioner, petitioner has not been held guilty on every count but it is not the case where the petitioner has not been found culpable for his acts of omission by virtue of the post which he was holding in the Land Acquisition Office. The enquiry officer has found him guilty of some of the charges which are serious in nature, this was the basis on which - 5 - Annexure-11 has come to be passed and Annexure-11 speaks for itself and gives the foundational facts as well as the reasons for imposition of the punishment upon the petitioner. No doubt, the Secretary in his appellate order has taken a technical view of the matter as well there are reflections of consideration of some of the issues on the merits as well. In the totality of the facts and considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner the principles of Kunj Behari Misra has no application to the proceeding under Rule 43(b). It is not a case where the punishment has been awarded on the petitioner without there being any enquiry or finding of guilt with regard to his omission and commission. Petitioner is a public servant. An enquiry on the issue was made by the enquiry officer, finding of guilt was also recorded but the enquiry report has not been challenged in any proceeding. If foundations are laid in the enquiry report and the same has not been interfered or challenged at any point of time then the powers are vested under Rule 43(b) to withhold pension and other benefits for - 6 - the charges which stand proved in a proper enquiry. In the opinion of the Court the charges and findings are serious in nature which has caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer. Writ application has no merit and is dismissed. S.S. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)