LexSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus MOHD. IDRIS ANSARI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. v. MOHD. IDRIS ANSARI APRIL 25, 1995 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] S e1Vice Law : Bihar Pension Rules : Rules 43 and 139 Departmental Enquiry-Employee-Alleged misconduct-Retire- ment-State Government-Power to reduce pension-Necessary conditions for-Held while exercising power under rule 139, rule 43(b) should be com- plied with-Notice under rule 139 for reducing pension-Misconduct relied on was prior to four years from the date of notice-Proceedings under rule 139 D held incompetent. The respondent, working in the Irrigation Department of the appel- lant State, was awarded punishment for certain financial irregularities committed by him during the period 1986-87. The High Court set aside the punishment order on the ground that it was passed in violation of the E principles of natural justice with liberty to the State Government to proceed afresh against the respondent. In the meanwhile the respondent retired from service with effect from 31.1.1993 and the State Government issued him a notice on 17.7.1993 for initiating fresh departmental proceed- ings. However, as no action could have been taken against the respondent F under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules since the period of charges was prior to four years from the date of notice, the State Government issued another show cause notice dated 27.9.1993 under rule 139 proposing to deduct 70 per cent of his pension and passed final order on 13.12.1993 withholding 70 per cent of pension payable to the respondent. The respon- G dent successfully challenged the notices dated 17.7.1993, 27.9.1993 and the order dated 13.12.1993 before the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant- State that the High Court was not justified in quashing the impugned notices and the final order withholding pension. Even if it be held that H there was no proof of misconduct established on record, the proceedings 754 --- STATE OF BIHAR v. MOHD. IDRIS ANSARI 755 should have been sent back to the authorities for reconsideration of the A question and for arriving at proper findings in accordance with law. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that (i) the proceedings under Rule 139 were not initiated on the ground that the service record of the respondent was unsatisfactory bnt were initiated on the basis of mis- conduct for which there was no proof and, therefore, the order withholding B pension was not justified; (ii) there was no reason to remand the proceed- ings because the notice under Rule 139 relied on alleged misconduct com- mitted during 1986-87 which was prior to four years from the date of notice and hence the notice was invalid and could not support any fresh proceed- ings. c Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The decision of the High Court on the facts of the present case is unexceptionable. No case is made for interference in this appeal. [759-H, 764-Bl D 2. A conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 projects the follow- ing picture:- [762-E] I. A retired Government servant can be proceeded against under Rule 139 and bis pension can be appropriately reduced if the sanctioning authority is satisfied that the service record of the respondent was not E thoroughly satisfactory. [762-E] II. Even if the service record of the concerned officer is found to be thoroughly satisfactory by the sanctioning authority and if the State Government finds that it is not thoroughly satisfactory or that there is proof of grave misconduct of the concerned officer during his service tenure, the State Government can exercise revisional power tQ reduce the pension but that revision is also subject to the rider that it should be exercised within 3 years from the date, an order sanctioning pension was first passed in his favour by the sanctioning authority and not beyond that F period. [762-F, G] G So far as the second type of cases is concerned the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the concerned Government servant during his service tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional authority from the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken place during his service tenure or from departmental proceedings which H r 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 3 S.C.R. A may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of cases. But such departmental proceedings will have to comply with the requirement
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.