IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4062 of 2010
1. RAMJI PRASAD S/O LATE SRI BUDHDEO PRASAD R/O HOUSE
NO. 78, GANDHI PATH NORTH, S.K. PURI (SOURTH NEHRU
NAGAR), P.O. AND P.S. PATLIPUR, DISTT.- PATNA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY OLD
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE JOINT SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA
5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MAGADH
RANGE, GAYA
6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH,
PATNA
-----------
2. 24.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for
the State and the Accountant General.
While the petitioner was posted as the Section
Officer in the office of D.I.G. Magadh Range, Gaya, he
was charge sheeted on 25.6.2005 on two grounds. It
primarily related to certain alleged interpolations made
permitting a candidate to appear a second time in the
physical test during the selection process after he had
failed to qualify on the 1st occasion and laxity in co-
ordinating with the local lawyer in sending a reply to the
legal notice received on behalf of such candidate.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
on 14.7.2008 had requested to drop the charges in view
of the fact that the entire selection process was cancelled
2
subsequently for other reasons. The petitioner has
superannuated on 31.7.2007. No illegal benefit accrued
to anyone by reason of the alleged act attributed to the
petitioner. It cannot be classified as a case of serious or
grave misconduct causing pecuniary loss to the
Government so as to invite an order of punishment for
withholding 20% of his pension for 10 years in exercise of
powers under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules.
Counsel for the State points out that the
petitioner has admitted the charge. His defence has been
disbelieved.
This Court from the documents on record is
satisfied that the petitioner admitted the charge. His
defence has been disbelieved. Once the charge has been
admitted, this Court does not consider it necessary to
deal with the submissions of alleged irregularities in the
departmental proceedings, about which also the Court in
any event has its reservations.
In (2008)5 SCC 569 (Chairman & Managing
Director V.S.P. & Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari
Babu, dealing with a punishment in a departmental
enquiry where charges were admitted it has been held at
Paragraph 16 as follows:-
“16. ……..He in his explanation,
in answer to the charge sheet pleaded guilty
admitting the charges. In terms of Section
58 of the Evidence Act charges having been
admitted were not required to be proved. It
3was on that premise that the enquiry
proceeding was closed…..”
The only issue surviving now is of quantum of
punishment. That normally is the prerogative of the
employer. The proper course for the Court was to
remand the matter unless for reasons of its satisfaction
to be explained in the order, the Court itself considers
proper to substitute the punishment with the appropriate
quantum.
It has been noticed that the alleged selection
process in which the petitioner attempted to favour a
candidate came to be cancelled. The alleged attempted
favour did not result in any illegal appointment causing
pecuniary loss to the Government. The petitioner has
retired on 31.7.2007 and in the evening of his life has no
other source of income except his pension. The
misdemeanor by him can therefore be euphemistically
described as an attempt. He additionally deserves to be
left in solitude after retirement considering his 33 years
of unblemished service.
The Supreme Court (2005)3 SCC 501 dealing
with 5% cut in pensionary benefits under 43(a) of the
Bihar Pension Rules has held at Paragraph- 17 as
follows:-
“17. If the pensioners benefit is
cut at 5% out of the total amount of
pension payable to the appellant the
appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and
4injury since, after retirement, the
pensionary benefit is the only amount
available to eke out a livelihood for the
retired employees of the Government.”
This Court therefore in the entirety of the matter
is satisfied that to impose a punishment of withholding
20% of the pension for 10 years is grossly
disproportionate. This Court therefore modifies the final
order of the revisional authority dated 11.2.2010 by
directing withholding of 5% pension of the petitioner for
one year.
The writ application is allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)