Jagdish Chandra Ghosh vs State of Jharkhand

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 20.04.2017 by which he has been imposed penalty of recovery of Rs.4,76,743.50 from pension. Â

In the incident of theft which took place between 27.11.2012 and 28.11.2012, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide

order dated 15.04.2014. The enquiry report dated 07.12.2015 records a finding that had the petitioner been not negligent and keys of the chest

remained with him, the incident would not have occurred. The petitioner has been found responsible for the theft of Rs.9,53,487/-. A

second            show-cause notice under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 was issued to the petitioner to which

he submitted his reply on 03.03.2016. Finding his reply to the second show-cause notice unsatisfactory, penalty of Rs.4,76,743.57 to be recovered

from his pension has been imposed upon him.Â

Referring to the letter dated 04.07.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not the petitioner who retains the chest-key and

while so, he cannot be held responsible for theft of Rs.9,53,487/-.   Another plea taken by the petitioner is that the person who infact is

responsible for the theft has not been proceeded against in the departmental enquiry.Â

Powers of judicial review of the Writ Court in the matter of departmental enquiry is very limited.          Â

In “Syed Yakoob vs K.S. Radha Krishnan†reported in AIR 1964 SCC 477, the Supreme Court has explained the powers of the High Court to

issue writ of certiorari. It has been held that only in cases in which the penalty order has been issued in breach of rules of natural justice or contrary

to the extant rules a writ of certiorari shall lie. It is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that during enquiry he was not afforded sufficient opportunity

to defend himself; the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 itself would disclose that a copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner

alongwith the second show-cause notice dated 03.02.2016. It is also well-settled that sufficiency or otherwise of the evidence is not a ground to

interfere with the findings recorded by the departmental authorities in the enquiry. Theft of Rs.9,53,487/- is an admitted fact. Negligence of the

petitioner stands established in the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.12.2012. Under the Pension Rules entitlement for pension to an employee is

not automatic. His conduct, past as well as future, is relevant for grant of pension to an employee. The impugned order dated 20.04.2017 has been

passed in exercise of powers under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 which confers such powers on the employer.Â

In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.04.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.  Â

        Â