Pension cut without proof of wrongdoing? Patna High Court relief for retired official who flagged ‘fake appointments’

The order added that the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry, even though the charges levelled against the petitioner were denied by him. Therefore, the enquiry itself stood vitiated.

Background

• The petitioner, Subhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, superannuated from service on October 31, 2017. On his final day of service, the Department of Labour Resources initiated disciplinary proceedings against him following his own report to the principal secretary regarding fake appointments in the department.
• These proceedings were later converted into a process under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which allows the state to withhold pension for grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.

Court’s findings

• The enquiry was conducted on the petitioner’s complaint, but a decision was taken to initiate departmental proceedings against him without any basis.
• It appears that the order regarding the departmental proceedings was not served upon the petitioner, since he superannuated from service on the same day.
• The authority concerned, while issuing a resolution, directed that service upon the petitioner be made through registered post.

• But during the course of proceedings before this court, not a chit of paper has been brought on record by the respondents to show that the same was served upon the petitioner before he superannuated, i.e., on 31.10.2017.
• The resolution dated 31.10.2017 was sent to the previous place of posting of the petitioner, from where he retired. Therefore, the same was not served.
• Subsequently, a decision was taken to convert the departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner, into a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
• The memo of charge was also served, along with the said letters and thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the initiation of departmental proceedings against him.

‘Enquiry stood vitiated’

• The petitioner kept requesting the conducting officer to provide evidence with regard to the proof of service of the chargesheet upon him before his date of retirement, but no response was received.
• The petitioner even requested the conducting officer to permit him to call certain witnesses for examination and cross-examination, but no permission was accorded, the Patna High Court noted.
• However, the enquiry officer proceeded to submit his enquiry report on 04.02.2022, wherein he came to the conclusion that since the delinquent had not appeared and denied the charges levelled against him, he found the charges to be proved against the petitioner based on a letter dated 27.08.2007 of the district magistrate, Vaishali.
• Further, the enquiry officer did not bother to get the said document proved by examining a witness.
• It is settled law that even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied-upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents, and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination.
• The Patna High Court found that the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry, even though the charges levelled against the petitioner were denied by him. Therefore, the enquiry itself stood vitiated.