Patna High Court
Raghunath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 23 February, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989(37)BLJR82
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha
JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 31.3.1982 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition and has further prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forbear from implementing the order as contained in Annexure-1 thereto and to restrain them from realising a sum of Rs. 479.20 paise from the petitioner.
2. The petitioner at the material time was working as an Accountant In the Darbhanga Medical College Hospital, Laheriasarai. It was alleged that the petitioner while so working embezzled some amounts belonging to the aforementioned hospital.
3. The petitioner was prosecuted on a charge of embezzlement under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the trial Court. The petitioner's appeal to (his Court was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The said decision is reported in A.K. Bose v. State of Bihar . In the said judgment it has been held by the Supreme Court of India that the concerned file never passed through the petitioner and as such the petitioner was directed to be acquitted by the aforementioned judgment.
4. From the impugned order it appears that the Minister of Health rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and by the impugned order the petitioner has been directed to deposit the aforementioned sum of Rs. 479.20 paise within seven days from the date of the issuance of the order dated 31.3.1982.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has superannuated on 20th March, 1987. It has further been asserted on behalf of the petitioner that no proceeding under the provisions of Pension Rules has yet been initiated.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has superannuated on 20th March, 1987 and uptill now no proceeding under the provisions of Pension Rule has been initiated to recover the said amount from the petitioner, in my opinion, the aforementioned sum of Rs. 479.20 paise cannot be directed to be withheld from the amount of pension of the petitioner.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed but without any order as to costs.