Patna High Court
Bishwanath Prasad Gupta vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 4 December, 2023
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3480 of 2018
======================================================
Bishwanath Prasad Gupta, Son of Late Sita Ram Prasad Gupta, Resident of
Bakarganj, P.O.-Bankipur, P.S.-Pirbahore, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Planning and Development,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Department of Planning and Development Economics and
Statistics Directorate, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Patna.
5. The District Statistical Officer, Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar, AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 04-12-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the office order dated 13.11.2017 issued vide Memo No. 2495
by the Director Economic and Statistic Directorate, Bihar, Patna
(Annexure-11 to the writ petition) by which the entire pension
of the petitioner has been forfeited.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was subject to disciplinary proceedings and a
punishment order was passed against him on the basis of two
charges against which the petitioner had moved earlier before
Patna High Court CWJC No.3480 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
2/4
this Court in CWJC No. 5974 of 2014 which was disposed of
vide order dated 29.08.2014 in which the order passed by the
disciplinary authority has been set aside and it was held that
there is a violation of Bihar Government Servants
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the CCA Rules, 2005') as the punishment order
has been passed without the issuance of disagreement memo.
Therefore, the order of punishment has been set aside and the
Hon'ble Court has pleased to grant liberty to the disciplinary
authority that shall pass an appropriate final order in accordance
with the law on the basis of enquiry report, as contained in
Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, submitted by the Inquiry
Officer. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after
setting aside the said order, the disciplinary authority has issued
a disagreement memo by which he has demanded a second
show cause from the petitioner vide Memo No. 2111 dated
22.09.2017
(Annexure-9 to the writ petition). Subsequently, the
petitioner submitted the second show cause and upon going
through the second show cause, the order of punishment has
been passed. It is further submitted that during the pendency of
the earlier writ petition CWJC No. 5974/2014, the petitioner
retired from his post on 30.06.2014 and, therefore, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3480 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
disciplinary authority has switched over the said departmental
proceeding under Rule 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950
and then passed the order of forfeiture of the pension. The said
order of forfeiture of the entire pension has been passed in the
teeth of Rule 139(c) of the Bihar Pension Rule.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that after
setting aside the earlier order passed in the departmental
proceeding, the disciplinary authority has issued the letter of
disagreement on the enquiry report and demanded a second
show cause from the delinquent. He further submits that
according to CCA Rule, 2005, the disciplinary authority is
competent to do so and upon consideration of the reply of the
second show cause, a reasoned order has been passed by which
order of forfeiture of the entire pension amount has been made.
Since the delinquent retired on 30.06.2014, therefore, the said
departmental proceeding which was initiated during his service
period has been converted into the proceeding under Section
43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, and the order passed is
complete in accordance with law.
5. Upon considering the case and position of law, it is
crystal clear to this Court that the order for forfeiture of pension
can be passed only after granting opportunity to the delinquent
Patna High Court CWJC No.3480 of 2018 dt.04-12-2023
in view of the ratio as laid down under Rule 139(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rule as well as Ram Das Ram Vs. the State of
Bihar reported in (2022) 1 BLJ 618 wherein it has been held
that prior to passing the forfeiture of pension, opportunity of
hearing shall be granted to the delinquent.
6. In the light of the Bihar Pension Rule 139(c) and in
view of the decision rendered in the case of Ram Das Ram
(supra), this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned i.e.
dated issued vide Memo No. 2495 dated 13.11.2017 by the
Director Economic and Statistic Directorate, Bihar, Patna
(Annexure-11 to the writ petition) is illegal and is not in
accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed and the writ
petition is allowed.
8. The respondents are directed to grant consequential
benefits to the petitioner.
Ashwini/-
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09/12/2023
Transmission Date NA
