R

In,
The High Court of Judicature At Patna
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

C.W.J.C No: -……………………… of 2022

Rajendra Prasad…………………………………………………………………………Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar & Ors…………………………………………………

Respondents

The humble statement of

facts for filing

counter affidavit on

behalf of the

Respondent no (4) as

D.M Cum Collector,

Jehanabad and

Respondent no (7) as

Treasurary officer

Jehanabad.

Synopsis
 2

That this writ petition has been filed by the

petitioner to set aside the order passed by the

Respondent no (4) as D.M cum Collector, Jehanabad and

it was issued vide memo no 822 dated 10/09/2020 in

which permanently 10% pension amount of the

petitioner has been with-held in the light of order

passed in C.W.J.C No: - 13193 of 2010 order dt.

24/04/2018. Further, the authority cum Respondent no

(4) as D.M Jehanabad found the service of the

petitioner not satisfactory and absolute breach of

duty by the petitioner caused the loss to the state

exchequer in which, even the criminal case was also

lodged against this petitioner vide Jehanabad P.S

Case no 424/2004 and other persons namely then

Treasury officer Jehanabad Prabhakar Singh, then

Assistant accountant Sri Umashankar Prasad. Further

it is humbly submitted that, the criminal case is

still running against the petitioner, therefore, as

 3

per Bihar Pension rule 43 (B), the action was taken

and further proceeding started, the impugned order is

annexed as Annexure (1) to the kind consideration of

this Hon’ble Court. Now, further, for release of

A.C.P Permotion and its amount for which, the meeting

of establishment committee was held on dated

24/11/2022 under the chairmanship of the Respondent

no (4) as D.M Cum Collector Jehanabad in which the

claim of the petitioner regarding A.C.P and its

benefit was considered in all circumspect and

rejected because, the criminal case is pending

against the petitioner and the copy of the order is

also circulated to the petitioner and the concerned

order is annexed as Annexure (II) to the kind

consideration of this Hon’ble Court therefore both

the orders passed by the Respondent no (4) as D.M Cum

Collector, Jehanabad against the petitioner regarding

retiral benefit and A.C.P is based on due process of

 4

law in the light of guideline issued by the state

Government in respect to benefit to the concerned

employee as mentioned in both the orders.

Now Para wise comments: -

1. That, the statement made in sub Para (I) to (IV)

of para (1) is the part of prayers cum reliefs

claimed by the petitioner, that is the matter of

adjudication by this Hon’ble Court.

2. That the statement made in sub para (A) to (H) of

para (2) is the mixed question of law and facts

raised by the petitioners that is not attracted

in this case because, the order of the Respondent

no (4) as D.M cum Collector, Jehanabad is based

on law & Facts related to the claims of the

petitioner where, the service of the petitioner

was found dissatisfactory and absolute breach of

duty.
 5

3. That, the statement made in para (3) is formal

one need no comment.

4. That, the statement made in para (4) is

admittedly a part of record.

5. That, the statement made in para (5) is the

reference of service history that need no

comment.

6. That, the statement made in para (6) for which

under reply it is submitted that the claim of the

petitioner regarding treasury cadre in 1979 is

oral submission and as per report of Respondent

no (7) as Treasurary officer, Jehanabad, the

photo copy of the letter no 4469 dated 11/07/2006

is annexed as Annexure (III) for kind

consideration.

7. That, the statement made in para (7) is also

admitted.
 6

8. That, the statement made in para (8) is also

admitted but under reply it is submitted that,

the cause of the different punishment in respect

to other employees has already mentioned in the

order because the petitioner has already retired

that is annexure (1)of this counter-affidavit.

9. That, the statement made in para (9) is

admittedly a part of record no comment.

10. That, the statement made in para (10) is also the

part of record, therefore need no comment.

11. That, the statement made in para (11) is the

reference of the second proceeding started

against the petitioner in the light of order

passed in C.W.J.C no- 13193 of 2010 dated

24/04/2018.

12. That, the statement made in para (12) is denied

to the extent that, the Respondent no (4) as D.M

Cum Collector Jehanabad mislead the order but,

 7

after founding sufficient cause the action was

taken as mentioned in the show-cause notice to

the petitioner vide memo no 606 dated 11/06/2018

that is annexed as Annexure (IV) for

consideration.

13. That, the statement made in para (13) is the own

analogy of the petitioner in comparing the order

passed in case of other employees for similar

charges for which, the reasons has already been

mentioned in the order that is annexure (I) of

this counter-affidavit.

14. That the statement made in this Para is the show-

cause reply of the petitioner that is admittedly

a part of record therefore need no comment.

15. That, the statement made in para (15) is

admittedly a part of record need no comment.

16. That, the statement made in para (16) further

need no comment.
 8

17. That, the statement made in para(17) is the

reference of impunged order therefore need no

comment.

18. That, the statement made in para (18) is

completely denied to the extent that the

Respondent no (4) as D.M Cum Collector Jehanabad

couldn’t under stand the order but the order is

reflective of this facts and the reason already

given to take action against the petitioner.

19. That, the statement made in para (19) further

need no comment because the question of

limitation raised by the petitioner to start

proceeding that is the matter of adjudication in

this writ.

20. That, the statement made in para (20) further

need no comment because the order has already

been passed by the Respondent no (4) as D.M Cum

 9

Collector Jehanabad that is Annexure (II) of this

Counter Affidavit.

21. That, the statement made in para (21) is not

relevant to comment after passing of order.

22. That, the statement made in para (22) further

need no comment and the petitioner has already

been informed that is annexure (II) of this

Counter-affidavit.

23. That, the statement made in para (23) further

need no comment because the action taken and

order passed that is Annexure (II) of this

counter-affidavit.

24. That, the statement made in para (24) further

need no comment.

25. That, the statement made in para (25) is own

analogy of the petitioner need no comment.

26. That, the statement made in para (26) is

completely denied because the order passed

 10

against the petitioner is legal justified and

after following the due process of law.

27. That, the statement made in para (27) is formal

one need no comment.

28. That, the statement made in para (28) is also

formal one need no comment.

T.O Jehanabad D.M Jehanabad