@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
R.K. Merathia, J.@mdashHeard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing that part of the order dated 23.2.2004 (Annexure-6) by
which pension and gratuity has been refused in view of the Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
2. It appears that petitioner was removed from his service with effect from 28.11.1986 (Annexure-1) on the ground that petitioner was found guilty
in two departmental enquiries for negligence of duty, disobedience of the orders of the superior officers, dereliction of duty and assaulting the
superior officer, and also theft of Government property and, therefore, he can not remain in Government service. Petitioner challenged order of his
removal in Writ Petition No. 6650 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 1.11.1999, concluding as follows :
From the fact aforesaid, it will be evident that the petitioner was removed from service on 5.11.1987 which order become final. Said removal was
made because of allegation of mis-conduct, dereliction of duty and insubordination. In the aforesaid circumstances, even if the petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal case which related to assault on BDO, there was no occasion for the authorities to review the order of removal.
So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the matter can be looked into by the competent authority. This Court cannot interfere in respect of
quantum of punishment that too after 12 years of order of removal.
There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed.
3. Petitioner then preferred LPA No. 1515 of 1999 which was also dismissed. Then, petitioner filed writ petition being WP (S) No. 6593 of 2003
with a prayer to reconsider his case with regard to quantum of punishment imposed on him, i.e., removal from service. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 7.1.2004 refusing to entertain the said prayer for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment dated 29.1.1985 -1985 PLJR 446 and submits that petitioner has not been dismissed
from his service, rather his service has simply been terminated and, therefore, in view of the said judgment petitioner is entitled to pension and
gratuity.
5. It appears from the said judgment that against the order of termination, petitioner of that case filed a writ petition which was dismissed with
observation that ""apprehension of the petitioner that the order will adversely affect payment of his gratuity and other benefits had no foundation"".
Inspite of the said observation, petitioner of that case was not paid his pension and gratuity. Then he filed the said writ petition. It is held that ""even
after holding a Government servant to be guilty of misconduct, the State may not dismiss or remove him from service, it may only terminate his
service"". It was found in the said case that services of the petitioner therein was simply terminated and it was not a case of dismissal or removal of
service and, therefore, he was entitled to pension and gratuity.
6. The facts and circumstances noted above clearly show that the said case is of no help to the petitioner. In the present ease on the basis of
charges proved against petitioner his services were terminated with effect from 28.11.1986 and he was removed from service, as he was not found
fit to remain in Government service by the order dated 4.12.1986 (Annexure-1). The said order was affirmed upto the stage of Letters Patent
Appeal. The petitioner himself treated the said order to be an order of dismissal/removal from service. The substance is to be seen, not the
terminology. This is not a case of termination simpliciter.
7. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
8. However, so far as the amount of Provident Fund and Group Insurance are concerned, that will be dealt with as per the order dated 23.2.2004
(Annexure-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has submitted his papers and completed all formalities in terms of the said
order dated 23.2.2004. If that be so, the said amount should be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law within six weeks from the receipt of
a copy of this order.
9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation/ direction.