Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Matter remained pending with the disciplinary authority and the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31.1.2000 from the service of the respondents as working in the capacity of Incharge Deputy Director, Mines in the substantive pay scale of District Mining Officer. Upon his retirement, petitioner submitted his pension papers to the respondents. However, since the pension etc. of the petitioner was not finalized, petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.431 of 2003 before this Court for a direction to the respondents for the purpose. In the said writ application, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondents bringing on record an order passed by the respondents contained in Memo No.603 dated 27.3.2002 reducing pension of the petitioner to the extent of 25% in exercise of powers of the respondents, as contained in Rule 43 of the Pension Rules after due concurrence from the B.P.S.C. under the provisions of Rule 43 proviso (c) of the Pension Rules. On receipt of the said memo, for the first time, through the counter affidavit of the respondents filed in the said writ matter, petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No.4768 of 2003, bringing the same on record as Annexure-12 to the writ application and challenged the same. During the pendency of the said writ application, respondents came out with another order as contained in Memo No.2398 dated 26.11.2004 imposing punishment, on proved charges in terms of Rule 49(1) of the Service Rules, demoting the petitioner on the post of Assistant Mining Officer mentioning that as the petitioner had retired, necessary communication for

- 12 -

enclosed with the said reply was even noticed by him while imposing punishment upon petitioner of reducing his pension by 25% and later on by demoting him to the post of Assistant Mining Officer. He further submitted that after his superannuation and before passing of the order, as contained in Annexures-12 and 13, no notice was issued to the petitioner in that respect. In support of his contention with regard to necessity of supply of documents and affording effective opportunity to a delinquent in the enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1986 S.C.2118 and State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal, reported in AIR 1998 S.C.3038. He further submitted that in the enquiry no records were produced by the Department to substantiate the charges as admitted by the enquiry officer himself, and therefore, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to come to a conclusion of guilt against the petitioner while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer without any materials available in the enquiry proceeding for the same. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The commissioner of Police, reported in AIR 1999 S.C.677 and a judgment of this Court in the case of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar Vs. B.S.Co-operative Limited, reported in

(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the relationship of master and servant gets severed with his employer upon superannuation of the employee, no order as contained in Annexure-13 demoting petitioner could be passed against him after his superannuation. The only punishment which the authorities could pass against petitioner after his superannuation was of reducing or withholding pension of the petitioner in whole or in part, for a period or permanently, after conclusion of the enquiry and upon finding of guilt of gross misconduct against petitioner. No other punishment as envisaged under the Service Rules of the State Government could be imposed upon petitioner by the

- 18 -

record to show, nor there is any pleading, that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner upon his superannuation for imposing punishment upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 43B of the Pension Rules. From the second show cause notice, it is apparent that the petitioner was required to show cause as to why he be not demoted to the post of Assistant Mining Officer in view of the charges having found true by the disciplinary authority. This show cause notice was in terms of Rule 55 of the Service Rules as till then petitioner was in service. But with his superannuation, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and respondents got severed and the Service Rules became inapplicable. Hence, the show cause notice, as contained in Annexure-9, asking the petitioner to show cause to the proposed punishment of demotion as Assistant Mining Officer, died its natural death. After superannuation, petitioner could be further proceeded with only in terms of Rule 43B of the Pension Rules. As laid down by this Court in the case of Basishtha Pd. Sinha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1993(1) PLJR 605(DB), before proceeding further after superannuation in a pending proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Pension Rules, a fresh show cause was essential to be issued to the petitioner to the punishment proposed against him in terms of Rule 43B of Pension Rules. Apparently, no such