Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The charge memo initiating the departmental inquiry is ultra vires and is set aside as it violates the time‑limit and post‑retirement restrictions under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Summary

The petitioner, a retired police officer, challenged a charge memo issued on 27 October 2021 that initiated a departmental inquiry into alleged irregularities in a register for the period July 2015 to May 2017. The petitioner argued that he had retired on 31 January 2015, so the alleged misconduct occurred after his service, and that the inquiry was initiated more than four years after the alleged events, violating Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i) and (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The State failed to file a counter‑affidavit despite a court direction. The High Court examined the statutory provisions and held that departmental proceedings cannot be instituted after retirement for acts occurring post‑retirement and must be within four years of the event. Consequently, the court set aside the charge memo and directed the respondent authority to pay any pending pension benefits. The writ petition was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a departmental inquiry can be initiated against a retired government servant for alleged misconduct occurring after retirement.
  • Whether the initiation of the inquiry more than four years after the alleged events violates Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i) and (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • departmental inquiry
  • pension rules
  • time-barred proceedings
  • retired government servant
  • civil writ jurisdiction
  • Bihar

Judgment

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1325 of 2022
     ======================================================
     Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary Son of Late Chhotan
     Choudhary, Resident of Village- Bhadauni, P.S. and District - Nawada.
                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.    The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila
     Region, Darbhanga.
4.   The Inquiry Officer-cum-City S.P., Darbhanga.
5.   The Presenting Officer cum Dy. S.P. (Traffic), Darbhanga.
6.   The S.P., Samastipur.
7.    The then Dy. S.P., Dalsingsarai-cum-Chairman, Inquiry Committee,
      Dalsingsarai, District - Samastipur.
                                                      ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate
                                     Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                     Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the State           :       Mr. Md. N.H. Khan (SC-1)
                                     Mr. Fazle Karim (AC to SC-1)
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

                             ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 27-01-2026

                       Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel for the State.

                       2. The present writ petition has been filed for

      setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 2352 dated

      27.10.2021 issued from the office of the Disciplinary Authority

      cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga

      (Respondent no.3) by which a belated and time barred

      Samastipur District Departmental Inquiry No. 42 of 2021 has

      been initiated against the petitioner and Prapatra-Ka has been

      issued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026
                                           2/5




         basis of ex-parte inquiry conducted by the Dy. S.P.,

         Dalsingsarai.

                         3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

         the charge memo (Annexure-1) is itself is the defence of the

         petitioner. He submits that in para 1 of the said charge memo, it

         is indicated that the petitioner was posted as Branch Incharge

         from 25.05.2010 to 10.10.2014 and thereafter, retired on

         31.01.2015. Counsel further submits that the register which was

         subject to enquiry was relating to distribution between July

         2015 to May 2017 and during that period, the irregularities and

         discrepancies have been found. Counsel further submits that he

         has two points for his defence. Firstly, he was posted in the said

         Branch from 25.05.2010 to 10.10.2014 and the wrong was

         alleged to be done between July 2015 to May 2017. Therefore,

         he submits that the alleged wrong was not during his period of

         posting, rather, he was already retired on 31.01.2015 itself. The

         next point which is legal according to him is that after six years

         of the petitioner's retirement and more than seven years of his

         posting at Samastipur police line, the departmental proceeding

         has been initiated which is in complete violation of Rule 43(b)

         proviso (a) (i) and (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 of

         Chapter III. He submits that in the light of the submissions made
Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026
                                           3/5




         on both the points i.e. on law and on facts, the present charge

         memo is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the

         same be set aside.

                         4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand

         submits that a short time may be granted to file the counter

         affidavit in this case.

                         5. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the

         present writ petition has been filed in the year 2022, but no

         counter affidavit has been filed. It further transpires to this Court

         that vide order no.3 dated 16.12.2025, learned counsel for the

         State was directed to file a counter affidavit in this case within

         four weeks. But till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.

                         6. After appreciation of the facts and law, it

         transpires that the State has no defence at all. In light of the

         present facts and circumstances, as well as the law which is very

         clear, namely Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i) (ii) & (iii) of the Bihar

         Pension Rules, 1950, the same is quoted hereinbelow as under:-

                                          “43(b) The Appointment authority of
                                          the post held at the time of retirement
                                          further reserve to themselves the right
                                          of withholding or withdrawing a
                                          pension or any part of it, whether
                                          permanently or for a specified period,
                                          and the right of ordering the recovery
Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026
                                           4/5




                                          from a pension of the whole or part of
                                          any     pecuniary      loss        caused     to
                                          Government if the pensioner is found
                                          in     departmental           or         judicial
                                          proceeding to have been guilty of
                                          grave misconduct; or to have caused
                                          pecuniary loss to Government by
                                          misconduct or negligence, during his
                                          service including service rendered on
                                          re-employment after retirement:
                                           Provided that-
                                           (a) such departmental proceedings,
                                           if    not      instituted     while         the
                                           Government servant was on duty
                                           either before retirement or during re-
                                           employment:
                                           (i) shall not be instituted save with
                                           the        sanction   of          the     State
                                           Government;
                                           (ii) shall be in respect of an event
                                           which took place not more than four
                                           years before the institution of such
                                           proceedings; and
                                           (iii) shall be conducted by such
                                           authority and at such place or
                                           places as the State Government may
                                           direct and in accordance with the
                                           procedure applicable to proceedings
                                           on which an order of dismissal from
                                           service may be made;”
             Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026
                                                        5/5




                                      7. Upon bare perusal of the provision as well as the

                      factual matrix that the enquiry was made for the period between

                      July 2015 to May 2017, whereas, the petitioner was already

                      retired on January 2015, this Court is of the firm view that the

                      charge memo is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the

                      Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-1) issued from the

                      office of the Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of

                      Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga (Respondent no.3) is hereby

                      set aside, with respect to the petitioner. The concerned

                      respondent authority is directed to pay all the benefits relating to

                      the petitioner, if any, which have not been paid to him due to the

                      issuance of the charge memo.

                                      8. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this

                      writ petition stands allowed.



                                                                   (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                     NA
Uploading Date             29/01/2026
Transmission Date            NA


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.