Patna High Court - Orders
Kapildeo Sharma vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 December, 2014
Author: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (27) dt.04-12-2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10484 of 2008
======================================================
Kapildeo Sharma son of late Ram Bilas Singh resident of village Aira P.S.
Sakurabad Dist. Jehanabad
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary to the Government, Home (Spl) Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad
5. The Treasury officer, Jehanabad District Jehanabad
6. Sub- Divisional Officer, Jehanabad
6. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi
7. Assistant Secretary, Freedom Fighter Division, Department of Home
Affair, New Delhi
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shiw Kr. Prabhakar, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Meera Singh, AC to AAG 13
For the Union of India : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, ASG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
27 04-12-2014Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel for the Union of India.
Certain facts are admitted in this case. Freedom fighter pension was sanctioned to the petitioner in the year 1989 on the recommendation of the State Government but subsequently, at the time of hearing of CWJC no.10638/2001, it came to the notice of this court that some scrupulous persons were getting freedom fighter pension having produced forged and fabricated documents and taking note of the aforesaid fact this court directed the Central Government as well as State Government to verify the claim of all those persons who were getting freedom fighter pension. In pursuance to the Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (27) dt.04-12-2014 2 aforesaid direction of this court, an enquiry was conducted and the District Magistrate, Jehanabad sent his enquiry report which was forwarded to the Union of India with recommendation that the petitioner got the above stated pension on the basis of forged documents. Having got the recommendation of the State Government for cancellation of pension of the petitioner, the Union of India cancelled the pension of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.07.2014.
The grievance of the petitioner is that before taking decision of cancellation of pension of the petitioner, no opportunity to challenge the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad was given to the petitioner nor any document along with enquiry report of the District Magistrate was supplied to him so that he could challenge enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed a decision of Dr. Rabindra Nath Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1983 BBCJ page 33 and submitted that neither any opportunity was given to the petitioner to challenge the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad nor his reply to the notice issued in the year 2004 was ever considered by the concerned officials of the Union of India before cancellation of pension of the petitioner. He submitted that in the above stated decision, Hon'ble Apex Court of this country has very clearly observed that consideration means application of mind but letter dated 24.07.2014 reveals that before taking decision of cancellation of pension of the petitioner, the concerned authorities did not apply their judicial mind nor considered the points raised by the petitioner in his reply to the notice issued to him in the year 2004.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that this Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (27) dt.04-12-2014 3 court directed the Union of India as well as State Government in CWJC no.10638/2001 to verify the claim of all pensioners. The case of the petitioner was also referred to the State Government and thereafter, the District Magistrate was entrusted to enquire into the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that notice was issued to the petitioner to produce all the supporting documents in support of his claim. He further submits that the District Magistrate, Jehanabad having completed enquiry submitted his report to the State Government and the State Government recommended for cancellation of pension of the petitioner. Continuing his submission, he submits that on the basis of recommendation made by the State Government, the Union of India has taken decision of cancellation of pension of the petitioner.
Admittedly, enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad was not supplied to the petitioner before cancellation of his pension and no opportunity was given to him to challenge the enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. Therefore, in my view, the above stated act of the Union of India is amount to violation of natural justice and before cancellation of pension of the petitioner on the basis of enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad as well as recommendation of the State Government, an opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner so-that he could challenge enquiry report of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
In the aforesaid circumstance, letter dated 24.07.2014 by which information regarding cancellation of pension of the petitioner has been given is, hereby, quashed and the matter stands disposed of with direction to respondent nos.7 and 8, namely, Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Home, New Delhi & Assistant Secretary, Freedom Fighter Patna High Court CWJC No.10484 of 2008 (27) dt.04-12-2014 4 Division, Department of Home Affair, New Delhi to reconsider the matter after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the enquiry report as well as recommendation of the State Government and furthermore, respondent nos.7 and 8 should also furnish enquiry report along with all relevant documents to the petitioner before taking decision afresh. The matter must be concluded within three months from the date of supply of the enquiry report and relevant documents to the petitioner.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) shahid U