JUDGMENT
Radha Mohan Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the validity of the order dated 16-8-1996 contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder he has been inflicted punishment of deduction of 10% of his pension every month.
2. In short, the facts are that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner while in service vide order dated 12-9-1988 as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition. Before conclusion of the said proceeding, the petitioner was allowed to superannuate on 31-1-1991. However, later inquiry report was submitted and an order of punishment was also passed, validity of which was challenged by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 596 of 1994 on the ground that he was not given reasonable opportunity to produce document to defend his case. This Court vide order dated 7-2-1995 contained in Annexure-10 allowed the said writ petition and quashed the inquiry report as well as the impugned order of punishment. However, this Court directed that the Inquiry Officer may proceed with the enquiry afresh in accordance with law after supplying the copies of the documents to the petitioner and giving him reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with show cause notice by letter No. 430 dated 4-6-1996 contained in Annexure-20 against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted show cause and raised various objections including that he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents nor he was given any opportunity of hearing. However, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order (Annexure-1) on the basis of the findings recorded in the said proceeding, purporting to be in exercise of the power under Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules.
3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact there was no proceeding initiated in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules since after retirement of the petitioner on 31-1-1991 nor he was ever served with any notice under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of the provisions of the Bihar Pension Rules and that the petitioner has also been denied with reasonable opportunity, as he was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents and also the opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order.
4. The learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order (Annexure-1) itself shows that the petitioner was given notice in terms of Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules vide letter No. 430 dated 4-6-96 and on consideration of the show cause, the said order for deduction of his pension was passed, as his service has not been found thoroughly satisfactory. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the State, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. It is true that the impugned order mentions about service of notice under Rules 139 and 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, but perusal of the department’s letter No. 430 dated 4-6-96 (Annexure-20) itself shows that no notice in terms of Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules was given to the petitioner. The said notice was issued in the departmental proceeding itself, which stood terminated after retirement of the petitioner on 31-1-1991. This view has also been approved by the apex Court in the case of Bhagirati Jen v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Ors. , wherein it has been held that the disciplinary proceedings lapse against the employee after his superannuation from service in absence of any such authority to continue the proceedings even after his retirement.
5. Undisputedly, no final order in the said proceeding was ever passed before the retirement of the petitioner. The impugned order is also passed similarly on the findings of the Inquiry Officer recorded in the said proceeding pursuant to which the show cause contained in Annexure-20 was issued to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Sachchidanand Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1999(3) PLJR 513, on consideration of various decisions of the apex Court and of this Court and also the rules applicable to the employees of the Bihar Government held that such an order is not permissible in law after retirement of the Government servant.
6. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, the impugned order dated 16-8-1996 contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to release the remaining amount of pension within two weeks of the receipt/production of the copy of this order by issuing necessary sanction order, whereafter the Accountant-General shall issue necessary authority slip within one week thereafter. In the circumstances of the case, there shall, however, no order as to costs.