A retired judicial officer from Bihar, Radhe Shyam Sharma, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the deduction of 50% of his pension as a penalty imposed through disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Patna High Court. The case dates back to 2012 when the officer was suspended just four days before his scheduled retirement based on a complaint alleging a hasty decision in a criminal case. The subsequent disciplinary proceedings resulted in a 2017 order to deduct half of his pension.
Senior Advocate Inderjit Mahanty, along with a team of advocates including Manjula Gupta, Satyajit Mahanty, Prem Sunder Jha, Soubhagya Ranjan Pati, and P Vamshi Rao, represented Radhe Shyam Sharma in the Supreme Court. Sharma contends that the criminal case mentioned in the complaint was not initially part of the "article of charges" presented during the disciplinary proceedings. Instead, it was added later in 2016, violating the rules governing such proceedings.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mitthal, took note of Sharma's submission that the case leading to his suspension was belatedly added as a supplementary charge beyond the permissible time of four years. The court issued a notice on July 25, returnable in six weeks, to the Bihar government and the Patna High Court to respond to the matter.
Sharma's defence rests on the fact that his judgment in the concerned case speaks for itself, and he considers it unprecedented that a final judicial order has become the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings. Despite retiring in 2012, he continues to face indignity due to the penalty on his pension.
In February, the Patna High Court had dismissed Sharma's plea challenging the pension deduction. Unsatisfied with the ruling, he has now moved an appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking justice in the matter.
The Supreme Court's examination of this case will shed light on the validity and implementation of pension deduction penalties in disciplinary proceedings and its impact on retired judicial officers. The hearing scheduled for six weeks from July 25 will be closely watched by the legal community for its potential implications on similar cases in the future.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
