Rajdeo Ram vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rajdeo Ram, a retired Headmaster from Balika High School (10+2) Arwal, retired on May 31, 2019. He filed a writ petition seeking payment of his retirement benefits, including gratuity, commutation, leave encashment, and arrears of pension, with statutory interest. The petitioner had submitted all requisite papers, and the P.P.O. was issued by the Accountant General, Bihar. However, the District Treasury Officer, Arwal, had not paid the retirement benefits. The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-payment, citing an inquiry into the purchase of materials of poor quality and alleged non-adherence to departmental instructions. The State contended that Rs. 6,28,848.50 of the gratuity remained unpaid due to the purchase of sub-standard articles, for which a three-men inquiry committee was constituted.

Held

The Court held that the withholding of the petitioner's retirement benefits was not justified, particularly in the absence of specific departmental instructions regarding the purchase of articles. The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted GST invoices to support his claim of genuine purchases and that the three-men inquiry committee, constituted to investigate the matter, had not yet submitted its report. It was admitted that Rs. 6,28,848.50 of the gratuity remained to be paid. The Court directed the District Magistrate, Arwal, to ensure the submission of the inquiry committee's report within two weeks and to ensure the payment of all retiral dues to the petitioner within a further two weeks thereafter. The ratio decidendi is that retirement benefits should not be withheld arbitrarily without a concluded inquiry and in the absence of clear departmental guidelines, especially when the employee has provided supporting documentation for their actions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the withholding of the petitioner's retirement benefits, specifically Rs. 6,28,848.50 of his gratuity, is justified pending the outcome of a three-men inquiry committee report, considering the petitioner claims to have purchased genuine articles supported by GST invoices and denies receiving specific departmental instructions regarding such purchases? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and administrative propriety). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the withholding of his pensionary amount was arbitrary and illegal, as no specific departmental instructions were issued to Headmasters regarding the purchase of articles. He asserted that he had submitted GST invoices as proof of genuine purchases and had not committed any misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that the non-payment of dues despite the issuance of the P.P.O. was unjustified. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that a portion of the gratuity remained unpaid because the petitioner had purchased sub-standard articles, leading to the formation of a three-men inquiry committee. Payment would be subject to the outcome of this inquiry.