Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

alongwith interest and also gratuity. The petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to forthwith release the arrears of difference of salary for the period of suspension.

2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ petition is that initially the petitioner joined as Accountant in the year 1972 and continued as such till September, 2005. While continuing as Accountant, the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of his judicial custody with effect from 09.02.1996 for his alleged involvements in Fodder Scam and the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 07.02.1996. Thereafter, the said order of suspension was revoked vide order passed in C.W.J.C No.2348 of 1998(R) and the order of revocation of suspension was passed on 16.09.1999 and the period of suspension i.e. from 07.02.1996 till 16.09.1999 has been treated as period of regular services. A departmental proceeding was initiated vide letter dated 09.12.1999 and again the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.03.2000 on the ground of judicial custody and the said departmental proceeding was closed vide memo No.191 dated 31.01.2005 issued by the respondent no.2 as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It has been averred in the writ application that after revocation of suspension the petitioner started discharging his duties. In view of this conviction in the Fodder Scam case, the petitioner has been dismissed from services with effect from 21.09.2005 vide office order dated 31.03.2006. The normal date of superannuation of the petitioner was on 31.01.2007 and after due date of retirement the petitioner submitted representations for grant of pensionary benefit vide representation dated 30.04.2007 as per Annexure-2 to the writ petition and on the receipt of the said representations the respondents vide order dated 12.11.2007 rejected the representation of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rule which is under challenge in this writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order vide Annexure-3, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has knocked the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance.

4. The counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioner is a convicted in Fodder Scam R.C. Case No.25(A)/96 and the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs.30,000/- and as per the provision of Rule 46 of Jharkhand Pension Rules which envisages if a Public Servant is dismissed for misconduct, he or she will not be allowed for grant of pensionary benefits and under Rule 27 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, the pension includes gratuity. The case of the petitioner was duly considered after conviction and sentence and by order dated 30.03.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh issued memo No.559 dated 31.03.2006 the petitioner has been awarded punishment of dismissal on the basis of conviction in a criminal case with effect from 21.09.2003 the date on which he was convicted as evident from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that the question of payment of pension has also been considered by the competent authority and in exercise of power conferred under Rule 46 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, the order was passed debarring the petitioner from pension and it was also found that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate pension, accordingly letter no.732 dated 12.11.2007 has been issued as per Annexure- B to the counter-affidavit. Therefore, the order dated 12.11.2007 has been passed on the basis of order of dismissal dated 31.03.2006 which has never been challenged and it has attained finality, therefore there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. It has further been submitted that the pendency of an appeal does not remove the stigma cast upon the petitioner on account of conviction, unless the conviction is kept in abeyance by the appellate authority.

It would be also relevant to refer Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Pension Rules.

(II) Admittedly, the impugned order of dismissal from services dated 30.03.2006 has not been challenged by the petitioner which has been passed on the basis of conviction in Fodder Scam case. Therefore, because of his misconduct he has been dismissed from services and in view of Rule 46 of the Pension Rule, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. In other words, the dismissal order on account of conviction in Fodder Scam case was a sequel to invoke Rule 46 of Pension to debar the petitioner to avail of benefits of post retiral benefits.