RANCHI, India, Sept. 16 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 18:

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ petition was initially preferred challenging the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the Joint Secretary-1, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited contained in Annexure-6; whereby 10% pension of the petitioner was withheld as per Rule-139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal of petitioner on 06.01.2016; whereby instead of 10%, 2% pension of the petitioner was withheld. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing I.A. No.765 of 2016 which was allowed on 13.07.2016.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner sought guidelines by Letter No.353 dated 05.10.2005 for lodging an F.I.R. with respect to disappearance of scraped copper wire. It is alleged against the petitioner that it was the duty of the petitioner to lodge the F.I.R. first and to inform the Higher Officers. It is further alleged that the petitioner instead of lodging the F.I.R., sought guideline to lodge the F.I.R. with respect to such event.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he retired on 31.12.2006 from the post of Electrical Superintending Engineer. His pension was sanctioned provisionally on 06.03.2007. When the pensionary benefits were not being released, he filed a writ petition on 18.11.2008 which was registered as W.P.(s) No.5530 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.07.2011 with a direction to release the admitted pensionary benefits.

However, a show-cause notice was issued to this petitioner on 29.08.2013 directing him to show-cause as to why his pension to the extent of 10% be not withheld under Rule 139 (c) of Jharkhand Pension Rule for negligence and dereliction of his duty which he committed on 05.10.2005.

This show-cause was replied by this petitioner on 11.09.2013. The impugned order of withholding of 10% pension was thereafter passed on 30.09.2013. The writ petition was filed on 31.03.2014 challenging the said order of withholding of pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition, the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided on 06.01.2016 and the pension to the extent of 2% was withheld. In this view of the matter the penalty was reduced from 10% to 2% withholding of pension.

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are neither sustainable in law; nor on facts. He refers Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule to submit that the respondents have no power and authority to withhold the pensionary benefits after four years from the date of event, as the petitioner was a retired employee.

He further submits that admittedly; the date of event is 05.10.2005, which is very much reflected in the show cause notice dated 29.08.2013 itself. The petitioner retired on 31.12.2006 and in this view of the matter the petitioner could have been proceeded at best by framing a charge till 05.10.2009 i.e., four years from the date of event; however, the show cause notice itself was issued on 29.08.2013 and hence; the same is time barred.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9U0Khc3%2BoIG9bBh5pAWKh7a3CUIgT9FEFE%2Fg7NI0EcS8&caseno=WPC/1861/2014&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010101282014&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.