Jharkhand High Court
Saket Bihari Lall vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 17 October, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 557 of 2014
Saket Bihari Lall ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. kchansh Kishore, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate
: Mr. Sunil Kr. Agarwal, Advocate
---
16/17.10.2022
1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. During the course of argument today, learned counsel for the
petitioner has pointed out that the impugned order contained in
Annexure-14 is not an order under Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension
Rules, but an order under Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules
withholding the pension of the petitioner. He submits that the necessary
procedure under Rule 139 has not been followed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to his submissions
at paragraph 27(g) at page 37 of the writ petition, which is quoted as
under: -
"That Rule 139 of Jharkhand Pension Rules could not be
invoked because if sanctioning pension means provisional
pension also then Rule 139(b) of the pension rules will not apply
as no reduction order was passed by the authority sanctioning
pension. It transpires that this power can be exercised at the time
of sanctioning itself. Rule 139(c) will not apply because 3 years
had already lapsed after sanction of pension (provisional)."
4. The learned counsel has also referred to the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 1955 (suppl.) 3 SCC
56 (State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Idris Ansari) to submit that the proceeding
under Rule 43(b) could not lead to passing of an order under Rule 139.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while
referring to the order under Rule 43(a) as contained in Annexure-7 to the
writ petition has submitted that the same has been passed pursuant to the
order passed by this Court. The learned counsel has relied upon a
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in
(2015) 8 SCC 519 para 39 to submit that no useful purpose will be
served by issuing notice to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of
hearing in view of the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner as the petitioner was admittedly convicted and the order
passed under Rule 43(a) as contained in Annexure-7 does not call for
any interference.
6. So far as the order under Rule 43(b) is concerned, it is not in
dispute from the side of the respondents that the allegations levelled in
Prapatra "Ka" which was relating to departmental proceeding against
the petitioner and was initiated prior to conviction of the petitioner, was
not taken to a logical end by leading evidence , rather the final order
passed under Rule 43(b) is based solely on the conviction of the
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the
judgment by this Court passed in L.P.A. No. 583/2018 decided on 18 th
December, 2019 to submit that if any irregularities is found in the matter
of departmental proceedings, then the same is required to be remitted
back to the authorities from the stage where the irregularity had occurred
and merely because there was irregularity, the same by itself does not
give any clean cheat to the incumbent. The learned counsel has
submitted that the judgment of aforesaid L.P.A. has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in
(2013) 6 SCC 530.
8. The learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of the
supplementary counter affidavit filed in the present case, the appropriate
authority, who would now look into the proceedings in connection with
Rule 43(a)/43(b), is the Finance Secretary, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi. He has referred to para-8 of the supplementary counter affidavit.
He submits that this is without prejudice to the contention that there is no
merit in the present writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed.
9. Arguments concluded.
10. Post this case for judgment on 19th December, 2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul
