Jagannath Rajak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP-23 For the SBI : Mr. Anjani kumar Mishra Mr. Ambarish Bhardwaj

¶17

======================================================

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶19

3 12-09-2024

¶20

1. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time was In-charge Headmaster, Middle School, Aliganj, Jamui, has filed the writ application challenging the communication, dated 22.09.2016, issued by the District Education Officer, Jamaui, in favour of Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle School, Aliganj, stating therein, that if the petitioner has not deposited the defalcated amount of Rs. 7,91,118/-, then reduction be made from the gratuity and leave encashement of the petitioner and to forward the relevant papers for payment of GPF, Group Insurance, etc., of the petitioner.

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.19836 of 2016(3) dt.12-09-2024 2/5

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2015 as Assistant Teacher. While in service, the First Information Report, bearing no. Chandradeep Police Station Case No. 90 of 2015, was lodged against the petitioner and others alleging defalcation of a sum of Rs. 7,91,118/- from the account of the School Education Committee of Middle School, Aliganj.

¶23

3. The co-accused Dharamchandan Rajak filed anticipatory bail application, bearing Cr. Misc. No. 14725 of 2016, which was disposed on 04.05.2016, on the basis of submission made by him that he shall deposit the sum of Rs. 7,91,118/- in the account of Aliganj Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, bearing account no 11872857802 of the State Bank of India, Aliganj, within a period of four weeks.

¶24

4. The petitioner also filed anticipatory bail application which was allowed by order, dated 25.05.2016, in Cr. Misc. No. 17723 of 2016, on the basis of submission of the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 55,000/-, which was deposited in the account of petitioner’s wife, has already been returned to the school.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that deduction of defalcated amount of Rs. 7,91,118/- from

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.19836 of 2016(3) dt.12-09-2024 3/5

¶27

gratuity and leave incashment of the petitioner is arbitrary inasmuch as undertaking was given by the co-accused, Dharamchandan Rajak, to return the aforesaid defalcated amount before this Court in anticipatory bail application filed by him which was allowed on the basis of his undertaking.

¶28

6. Learned counsel next submits that as per the legal provisions in Bihar Pension Rule, the respondentauthorities, on the basis of pendency of criminal and/or departmental proceeding, can only withhold 10% of pension, hence, the petitioner is entitled for 90% pension and other benefits.

¶29

7. Accordingly, the submission is that withholding the entire retiral dues of the petitioner on the ground of criminal proceeding, pending against the petitioner, is bad in law, unreasonable and arbitrary.

¶30

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the First Information Report was lodged and criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for retiral dues i.e. gratuity, leave encashment, pension, etc., unless the defalcated amount is returned by the petitioner.

¶31

9. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.19836 of 2016(3) dt.12-09-2024 4/5

¶33

that as per his instruction, the co-accused, Dharamchandan Rajak, according to his undertaking, has already returned the sum of Rs. 7,91,118/- in the account of School Education Committee of the Middle School, Aliganj.

¶34

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material on records, it is evident that criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and others for defalcation of a sum of Rs. 7,91,118/- from the fund of the concerned school. The criminal proceeding is still pending as per the instruction of the parties appearing in this case, accordingly, the communication, annexed at Annexure-P/12, being impugned order, dated 22.09.2016, for deduction of defalcated amount in the facts of the present case is not permissible.

¶35

11. Consequently, the portion of the impugned order by which the direction has been issued to deduct the defalcated amount from the gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner is set aside.

¶36

12. The respondent-authorities are directed to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner, along with pension, in accordance to the provisions of law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order.

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.19836 of 2016(3) dt.12-09-2024 5/5

¶38

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions,

¶39

this writ application is disposed.

¶40

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶41

ashwani/-

¶42

U

Jagannath Rajak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Rajak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramashankar Yadav @ Ramashankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Yadav @ Sudhir Prasad Vs the State of Bihar

Devkali Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Gajendra Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anita Devi Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary

Md. Ejaz Ahmad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.