Patna High Court
Bhola Prasad Das @ Bhola DasversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The order of punishment imposing a 10% pension deduction is set aside due to lack of evidence and procedural irregularities.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Upper Division Clerk, challenged a 2016 order by the District Magistrate of Madhubani that permanently deducted 10% from his pension under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. He alleged that the departmental inquiry that led to the punishment was conducted without serving him the enquiry report, without examining any witnesses, and without any oral or documentary evidence to prove the charges of forging a pension beneficiary list. The court found that the enquiry report was not served and that no evidence was adduced, rendering the punishment unsustainable. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of proof in quasi‑judicial disciplinary proceedings, the court set aside the order of deduction. It declined to remand the matter for further proceedings, noting the petitioner’s retirement and the lapse of time, and ordered the payment of full pension and consequential benefits within three months. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding against the petitioner complied with the principles of natural justice, including service of the enquiry report.
- Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the charges and justify the 10% pension deduction under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
- Whether the order of punishment dated 18‑11‑2016 should be quashed.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. 139(b), 43(b)
Subjects
- pension deduction
- departmental inquiry
- quash order
- evidence
- natural justice
- quasi‑judicial proceeding
- Bihar Pension Rules
- civil writ
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1273 of 2017
======================================================
Bhola Prasad Das @ Bhola Das, Son of Late Kari Das, Resident of Village-
Matahi, P.S.- Andharamath, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Madhubani.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani.
3. The Establishment Deputy Collector, Sadar, Madhubani.
4. The Treasury Officer, Madhubani.
5. The Block Development Officer, Rajnagar, Madhubani.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Ms. Namrata Mishra, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Surekha Kumari, AC to GP-18
For the Accountant General : Mr. Ram Kinker Choubey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“(i) To issue an appropriate order/s,
direction/s preferably in the nature of
CERTIORARI for quashing the Memo No. 2015
Madhubani dated 18-11-2016 passed by the
District Magistrate, Madhubani whereby and
where under the petitioner has been inflicted
punishment of withholding 10% pension amount
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
2/9
for whole life exercising powers u/s 43(B) and
139 (B) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
(ii) To direct the respondents to make
the full pension to the petitioner who has been
wrongly and illegally issued the order of
withholding 10% pension amount as such the
allegation leveled against the petitioner has not
been substantiated in course of departmental
proceeding initiated against the petitioners with
regard to make advantage to the wrong
beneficiaries under the social security pension
by preparing fake forged list
(iii) To direct the respondent to make
the payment of arrears of pension as such he is
being paid 90% pension along with other
consequential benefit if not paid.
(iv) The petitioner seeks indulgence of
this Hon’ble court to grant him any other relief/s
to which he is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while
posted and working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Office of
the Block Development Officer, Rajnagar, the petitioner was
served with a show-cause notice on 24.5.2013, to which he filed
his reply.
4. The petitioner was made accused in a criminal case
being Rajnagar P.S. Case no.106 of 2013, which was registered
on 15.6.2013 under sections 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
3/9
Indian Penal Code.
5. A memo of charge was served on the petitioner in
Prapatra-ka on 31.7.2013, to which the petitioner submitted his
reply.
6. An enquiry was conducted wherein enquiry report
dated 28.6.2014 was submitted by the Conducting Officer
finding the charge no.1 levelled against the petitioner to have
been proved.
7. The petitioner having retired during pendency of
the departmental proceeding on 30.6.2014, the proceedings were
converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
1950.
8. A second show-cause notice was served on the
petitioner to which he submitted his reply. The respondents
came out with the order of punishment dated 18.11.2016
directing for permanent deduction of 10 percent of the pension
of the petitioner.
9. It is against this order of punishment that the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ application for the
reliefs as stated herein above.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that it is the categorical case of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
4/9
even after conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner was not
served with a copy of the enquiry report. The said statement
made in paragraph no.11 of the writ petition has not been denied
by the respondents. Further, having taken the Court through the
copy of the enquiry report, it is submitted that neither any oral
nor any documentary evidence was lead on behalf of the
respondents and no witness having been examined in course of
enquiry, no documents or the contents thereof were proved by
the respondents. Thus, it is a case of no evidence against the
petitioner. In such view of the matter, the order of punishment
passed by the respondents is not sustainable and thus be set
aside.
11. The application is opposed by learned counsel for
the respondents. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding
was started against the petitioner on serious charges of having
furnished an incorrect list of persons who were granted pension
thus leading to pecuniary loss being incurred by the
respondents. On enquiry, the said list was found to be forged.
Learned counsel further submits that at each stage adequate
opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his case.
There is no procedural irregularity committed by the
respondents. There is no merit in the writ application and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
5/9
same be dismissed.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
13. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents
having served the petitioner with a memo of charge on
31.7.2013 proceeded with the conduct of a departmental
proceeding against the petitioner. The Conducting Officer
finally submitted his enquiry report on 28.6.2014, a copy of
which has been brought on record as annexure to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents.
14. A perusal of the contents of the enquiry report
would show that no witness has been examined on behalf of the
Management/respondents to prove the charges levelled against
the petitioner. No oral evidence having been lead, no document
has been marked exhibit or contents thereof proved by any
witness. Thus it is case of no evidence against the petitioner.
Reference may be made in this context to the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors.; (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2 SCC
772.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
6/9
15. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental
proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have been
proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive
at a finding upon taking into consideration the
materials brought on record by the parties. The
purported evidence collected during
investigation by the investigating officer against
all the accused by itself could not be treated to
be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No
witness was examined to prove the said
documents. The management witnesses merely
tendered the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed
by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could
not have been treated as evidence.
15. We have noticed hereinbefore that
the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has
been placed by the enquiry officer was the
purported confession made by the appellant
before the police. According to the appellant, he
was forced to sign on the said confession, as he
was tortured in the police station. The appellant
being an employee of the Bank, the said
confession should have been proved. Some
evidence should have been brought on record to
show that he had indulged in stealing the bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
7/9
draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct
evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence.
The tenor of the report demonstrates that the
enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him
guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded
on the basis that the offence was committed in
such a manner that no evidence was left.”
16. In the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to
be a representative of the
department/disciplinary authority/Government.
His function is to examine the evidence
presented by the Department, even in the
absence of the delinquent official to see as to
whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the present
case the aforesaid procedure has not been
observed. Since no oral evidence has been
examined the documents have not been proved,
and could not have been taken into
consideration to conclude that the charges have
been proved against the respondents.”
17. It may further be observed here that as per the
categorical case of the petitioner, no enquiry report was served
on him. There is no denial to the said statement by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. The order of punishment
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
8/9
passed consequent to the said enquiry report is fit to be set aside
on this ground also.
18. Without going into the merits of the other points
raised on behalf of the petitioner, the Court is of the opinion that
no copy of the enquiry report having been furnished on the
petitioner as also no oral or documentary evidence having been
lead in course of enquiry against the petitioner, the order of
punishment passed against the petitioner, impugned herein, is
not sustainable.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate,
Madhubani as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application is
set aside.
20. So far as the opportunity to the petitioner to
proceed with the departmental proceeding from the stage on
which the illegality in the proceedings took place, it may be
observed here that the petitioner retired from service on
30.6.2014. The departmental proceeding having been conducted
in such a casual manner, 12 years having passed since the
retirement of the petitioner, in the facts of the case, the Court
finds no good grounds for remanding the matter to proceed
against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1273 of 2017 dt.09-02-2026
9/9
21. The order of punishment impugned herein having
been set aside, the petitioner is held entitled for all
consequential benefits which shall be paid to the petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
22. The writ application stands allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…