Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Findings of this Court

14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Assistant Accountant from the office of Doranda Treasury, Ranchi on 31.01.2001.

15. While the petitioner was in service, serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner regarding his involvement in fraudulent withdrawal from Doranda Treasury relating to fodder scam. Consequently, the petitioner was put under suspension on 15.02.1996. The petitioner along with many other government servants and others was made an accused in criminal case which was subsequently numbered as R.C. Case No. 46(A)/96. F.I.R. was registered pursuant to letter no. 155 dated 17.02.1996 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to the officer in charge of Doranda Police Station for alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 (A), 120 B of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (c) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet dated 14.05.1997 in Prapatra-Ka which also stated that the FIR was also instituted in connection with the allegations. Thus, arising out of the same cause of action, on the one hand, criminal case was instituted and, on the other hand, departmental proceedings were initiated and the petitioner was also put under suspension.

This Writ Petition stands disposed of."

19. Against this order, L.P.A. No. 788/2003 was also dismissed on 01.09.2004 by observing that the Petitioner is an accused in Fodder Scam Case and a criminal case is pending against him in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. Charge - sheet has already been submitted. On these facts, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner cannot claim full pension and gratuity unless criminal case is finalized. Order passed in L.P.A. No. 788/2003 on 01.09.2004 is quoted as under:-

"Heard the parties.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.8.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4198 of 2003, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant- petitioner for a direction for payment of full pension and gratuity has been dismissed.

Petitioner is an accused in Fodder Scam Case and a criminal case is pending against him in the court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. Charge- sheet has already been submitted. On these facts, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner cannot claim full pension and gratuity unless criminal case is finalized.

68. In view of the averments of the counter affidavit as quoted above, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner on the point of alleged discrimination as the respondents have already taken steps for taking uniform action against all the convicted persons in the fodder scam case. Further, a letter no. 740 dated 05.03.2009 has been circulated with a direction that undertaking be taken from persons accused under Fodder Scam that in the event of conviction, any payment made to them shall be liable to be recovered. The petitioner was also asked to give such an undertaking but the petitioner refused to give such undertaking and challenged the same in the high court but the same was not quashed by this court and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner with a direction to consider his claim. The representation was disposed of vide impugned order as contained in annexure -7 by which on one hand the claim of arrears of pension was rejected and on the other hand the pension itself was denied by referring to rule 43(a) of the Bihar/Jharkhand pension rules. Admittedly the petitioner never gave any undertaking in terms of aforesaid letter no. 740 dated 05.03.2009. It appears that the respondents have taken steps to ensure parity amongst all the convicted persons and it is expected that the action as proposed by the respondents in the supplementary counter affidavit will be taken to its logical end in accordance with law. This Court is not pronouncing upon the rights and liabilities of any other person except the petitioner. Having passed a detailed judgement with regards to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for any direction for payment as prayed for. The issue posed by the petitioner as issue no (vi) quoted in para 3 above is accordingly answered against the petitioner.