In total violation of the principles of natural justice and also absolute disregard of the principles governing domestic enquiries; enjoined upon in the Bihar (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as also the Bihar Pension Rules, after retirement, a lady teacher is yet to get her pension although in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and Patna High Court, it has been held that pensions cannot be withheld because of pending enquiry proceedings.
The 29-page long judgement dated April 15, 2024 by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court set aside the judgment dated September 26, 2023 order of withholding 100% pension, gratuity and earned leave encashment. The appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till her superannuation. The appellant would also be entitled to pension considering her service to be continuous, subject only to any other proceeding taken. The directions for payment and interest shall be as per direction in Kamini Kumari (supra). The appellant shall also be entitled to be paid Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
The six petitioners namely, Neelam Kumari, Shashi Kala, Abha Rani, Ranju Bala Sharan, Bibha Rani and Subhra Rani had filed the writ against the State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Patna, Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Patna and Director (Administration)- cum -Additional Secretary, Education Department, Patna.
The judgement of the High Court reads: "The present appeals are similar to that disposed of in LPA No. 1219 of 2023 (Kamini Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. & its analogous cases). The writ petitions from which the appeals arise, were cases in which the challenge was to the domestic enquiry proceedings initiated against teachers appointed long back, on allegations of their appointments having been made irregularly. The enquiries concluded with termination, some of which orders were once successfully challenged before this Court and again the very same consequence was visited on the teachers who were still in service; after a de novo proceedings as permitted by this Court. As against those who had retired; 100% of their pensions were withheld on the conclusion of enquiry proceedings. The domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated on the ground that the teachers who were the petitioners and the appellants, were appointed irregularly between 1980 to 1990.
In the earlier batch of writ petitions, it was noticed that in the year 1998 by reason of an order dated 18.12.1998 passed in a Public Interest Litigation; CWJC No. 9847 of 1998 (Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Ors Vs. the State of Bihar and Anr), there was a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out investigation into the alleged irregular appointments.
The CBI submitted its report on 09.11.2004 before the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar; but no FIR was registered or any criminal proceedings were initiated. The Government slept over the matter despite receipt of the CBI report. In the year 2016, another PIL was filed numbered as CWJC No. 10002 of 2016 (Kaushal Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors) in which the State was called upon to apprise Patna High Court as to what transpired after the CBI enquiry report was filed. This led to a spate of domestic enquiry proceedings which were carried out in total violation of the principles of natural justice and also absolute disregard of the principles governing domestic enquiries; as enjoined upon in the Bihar (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as also the Bihar Pension Rules.
A number of writ petitions were filed and a group of them in Shanti Kumari Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17904 of 2016) were disposed of on 17.01.2017 finding that the petitioners, therein, who were teachers were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to canvass their respective cases, produce relevant documents and also the binding authorities relating to domestic enquiries. The Writ Court set aside the domestic enquiry proceedings and the termination orders passed, but left liberty to the State to proceed de novo with the enquiry proceedings.
It is based on such liberty reserved that the proceedings were taken against a number of teachers, some of whom had retired by the time the proceedings were initiated.
Others who were reinstated in service by reason of the earlier writ proceedings having set aside the termination orders, were also proceeded with. Some of the writ petitions were filed against the proceedings initiated, others against the termination orders and many against the withholding of pension after retirement; which withholding was also of 100 per cent of applicable pension.
Patna High Court in Kamini Kumari (supra) found that the proceedings against retired employees were against Rule-43 (b) and Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Md. Idrish Ansari; 1995 Supp 3 SCC 6.
Following the declaration in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra), it was held that the right of withholding of pension or any part of it permanently or for a specified period by virtue of Sub clause-(i) and (ii) of Clause-(a) of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules had to necessarily satisfy two requirements. One, that it can be instituted only with the sanction of the State Government and second, it can only be with respect to an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. All the proceedings which were taken up against the retired employees were with respect to the irregular appointments made between 1980 to 1990 far beyond the four-year period provided. There was also no sanction obtained from the State Government in any of the cases.
7. Reliance was also placed on Rule-139 which Rule was also interpreted in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra). Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules...
A order of April 28, 2022 by Justice Sanjeev Prakash reads: "Heard the parties. The case is being taken-up from defect side. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today. Considering it that this matter is covered by the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5489 of 2020 (Suresh Ram Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and connected matters reported in 2022 (2) B.L.J., 381 and the judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 34 of 2022 (Minakshi @ Sushre Minakshi & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), this petition is disposed of with the above terms. If an appeal is preferred before the District Appellate Authority/State Appellate Authority the same shall be taken-up at the earliest and preferably decided within a period of three months."
The order of September 26, 2023 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "No one appears for the petitioner. Two weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner to remove defects failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. If the defects stand removed within the aforesaid period, list this case on 19.10.2023."
The order of March 13, 2024 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan reads: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the Office notes, it appears that the present writ application is already dismissed on 10.10.2023 due to non-compliance of order dated 26.09.2023. As such, no order needs to be passed."
The order of November 20, 2024 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh reads: "Learned counsel for the respondent/s is directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Reply, if any, must be filed within two weeks. Thereafter, list this case on 18.12.2024."
A Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1369 of 2024
in
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3871 of 2022 was filed on April 18, 2024 in the Court of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad . It was registered on April 20, 2024.
The order of August 13, 2024 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Four weeks’ time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. If the defects stand removed within the aforesaid period, list this case on 20.09.2024 under appropriate heading. "
The order of October 5, 2024 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "This application has been filed for restoration of CWJC No.3871 of 2022 which stood dismissed for default on 10.10.2023. Having regard to the submissions that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner which resulted in dismissal of the case in default, this Court directs
restoration of CWJC No.3871 of 2022 to its original file subject to the compliance of the peremptory order dated 26.09.2023 passed in the said case. This application stands allowed."
No comments:
Post a Comment