IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17991 of 2009 1. CHANDRADEEP RAI S/O RAM AUTAR RAI R/O VILL.- LAKHANPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- DESARI, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER (EXTENSION) HAJIPUR-1, VAISHALI 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER (EXTENSION) HAJIPUR-II, VAISHALI 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER (EXTENSION) PATEPUR, VAISHALI 7. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE - CUM - CONDUCTING OFFICER VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 8. THE DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT DEPUTY COLLECTOR VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 9. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER JANDAHA, VAISHALI ----------- 4/ 12/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was a Jansewak, a class-3 post. He was served a Memo. of charge on 1.11.1991 on three counts. The first charge was that he was not regular in making recordings in the concerned register which contained incomplete recordings. The second charge was of unauthorized absence and that he was boisterous during meetings. He had not filed his reply to the show cause notice on both the allegations. The third charge was that despite warning he was not reforming his conduct while - 2 - discharging his duties. He was found absent during inspection. He was not filing his replies to the show cause notice. The fourth charge was that he was late to report at work and at times did not produce registers on demand. The departmental proceeding remained inconclusive and he retired on 31.7.2000 notwithstanding that he had filed his reply to the charge on 8.7.1992 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the nature of the allegations the departmental proceeding have remained pending for an inordinately long period of time. Due to pendency of the proceedings even the pension has not been finalized. He has suffered enough with the scepter of the departmental proceeding pending against him for long years and consequent denial of full pensionary benefits. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not deny the filing of his show cause and that the matter is still pending. Learned counsel for the State sought to persuade the Court that the petitioner was not cooperating. The recitals of the counter affidavit are extremely vague. This Court finds it difficult to pin down responsibility on the petitioner alone for the pendency of the departmental proceedings even if he is held partially - 3 - responsible for the same. The departmental proceeding was to be conducted by the respondents. If the petitioner was not cooperating they had adequate authority to conclude the same ex parte also. This Court concurs with the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he has suffered enough with the scepter of a departmental proceeding hanging over him with the consequence of a lesser pension visiting him in the form of a punishment without even a concluded departmental proceeding by now 10 years after his retirement. This Court upon consideration of the matter in its entirety including the nature of the charges against the petitioner which do not concern any major misfeasance or financial embezzlement etc. is satisfied that justice demands that the petitioner in his retirement be left in peace. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. He is entitled to fixation of his pension in accordance with law on the basis of the last salary drawn by him on the date that he superannuated. Let this order be complied with and the actual monetary benefits be made available to the petitioner from the date of his superannuation within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before the concerned respondent. - 4 - If the petitioner is not paid his actual monetary benefits within the period of four months, he shall be entitled to interest upon his arrears at the rate of 5% till payment and for which responsibility shall have to be fixed upon the delinquent concerned and finally recovered from his salary so that in no event does the Government bear the ultimate burden of interest except for purposes of compliance of the order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)