Patna High Court

Umesh Chandra SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 29 June 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The court set aside the pension‑deduction order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, a former police constable promoted to Assistant Sub‑Inspector, was suspended in 2019 after a viral video alleged police officials at a check‑post were collecting illegal gratification. An initial departmental enquiry dismissed the allegation of receiving money but found he had failed to supervise the post, leading to a dismissal order. The petitioner appealed, and a fresh enquiry again found negligence, resulting in a pension deduction of 10% for five years under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, after his retirement. The petitioner challenged the quashing of the enquiry report, the punishment order, and the appellate order, arguing the punishment was imposed on a ground not framed in the charge memo and that the statutory conditions for invoking Rule 43(b) with section 139 were not met. The High Court held that while the charge memo did include a supervisory‑duty allegation, the mandatory requirements for applying Rule 43(b) were absent, and therefore set aside both the pension‑deduction order and the appellate order, allowing the writ petition.

Issues considered

The punishment can be imposed only on charges specifically framed in the charge memo.
Whether Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, read with section 139, can be invoked for pension deduction after retirement.
Whether the departmental proceeding satisfied the statutory conditions for conversion to a pension‑rule proceeding.

Legislation cited

Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17, Rule 18
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 43(b), Section 139
Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 384, 386

Subjects

departmental enquiry
pension deduction
Rule 43(b)
supervisory duty
negligence
disciplinary action
certiorari
mandamus
Bihar Police
retirement

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13294 of 2025
======================================================
Umesh Chandra Singh S/O late Raj Narayan Singh, Resident of village -
Dalpat Bishunpur, P. S.- Dhaka, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Rang, Munger.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Munger
5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Cum, Enquiry Officer, Tarapur, Munger.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Akash Raj, AC to GA- 5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-06-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for the following

reliefs:

“i. For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
Enquiry report dated 14.04.2023, arising out of
Munger District Departmental Proceeding No.
62/19.
ii. For quashing the Punishment
order dated 03.08.2023, vide Munger District
order No. 1157/2023, passed by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Munger Rang,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
2/11

Munger
iii. For quashing the Appellate order
dated 25. 03. 2025 passed by the Additional
Director General of Police (Budget, Appeal or
welfare) Bihar, Patna.
iv. For issuance of an appropriate
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing the respondent authorities to reinstate
the petitioner in service from the date of
suspension i.e. 16.03.2019 with all consequential
monetary benefit.
v. For issuance of any other relief /
reliefs for which the petitioner may be found
entitled to.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner was serving as a Constable and, at the relevant

time in the year 2019, was posted at Kharagpur Police Station,

Munger. It is submitted that around the same period, the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector

(A.S.I.). Learned counsel further submits that during the

General Parliamentary Election, a check-post had been

established for checking vehicles and preventing the

transportation of illegal articles. The petitioner was deployed at

the said check-post along with two Home Guards and two

Chowkidars. Subsequently, a video went viral allegedly showing

certain police personnel and other officials deployed at the

check-post collecting illegal gratification from vehicle drivers in
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
3/11

the name of vehicle checking. On the basis of the said viral

video, Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 81 of 2019 was instituted on

16.03.2019 under Sections 384, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code. It is further submitted that, pursuant to the registration of

the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension

and Departmental Proceeding No. 62 of 2019 was initiated

against him. A charge memo dated 07.06.2019 was issued,

which has been brought on record as Annexure-P/1 to the writ

petition. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who

submitted his enquiry report on 28.02.2021, on the basis

whereof the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order

dated 18.06.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a

departmental appeal before the Director General of Police,

Bihar, Patna on 07.07.2021. It is further submitted that the

Director General of Police, Bihar, by order dated 10.05.2022, set

aside both the enquiry report and the order of dismissal and

directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range,

Munger to conduct a fresh departmental proceeding in

accordance with Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Government

Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
4/11

(hereinafter referred to as the “CCA Rules, 2005”). Learned

counsel further submits that in compliance with the aforesaid

appellate order, a fresh charge memo bearing Memo No. 1713

dated 21.05.2022 was issued. The petitioner duly participated in

the departmental proceeding, and the Enquiry Officer submitted

his report on 14.04.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the enquiry report consists of two parts. In the first

part, the Enquiry Officer has categorically recorded a finding

that the petitioner was not found to be involved in receiving any

illegal money, as alleged. Rather, the petitioner was merely seen

sitting at a table and looking at his mobile phone in the viral

video. The Enquiry Officer, therefore, conclusively held that the

video did not establish any allegation against the petitioner with

regard to the collection of illegal money. However, despite the

aforesaid categorical finding, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to

conclude that since the petitioner was the senior-most officer

present at the check-post, he had failed to discharge his

supervisory duties, resulting in the occurrence of the alleged

incident. On that basis alone, the Enquiry Officer held that there

was evidence of dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the charge
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
5/11

memo specifically alleged that the petitioner had received illegal

gratification; however, no such charge was found proved in the

enquiry. Instead, the finding ultimately recorded relates to

negligence and failure to perform supervisory duties, which was

never the charge framed against the petitioner. It is a settled

principle of law that punishment can be imposed only with

respect to the charges specifically framed in the charge memo

and duly proved during the departmental enquiry. Since the

allegation contained in the charge memo has not been

established, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed

punishment on an altogether different ground.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore,

submits that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing

punishment of deduction of 10% of the petitioner's pension for a

period of five years by converting the departmental proceeding

into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

(hereinafter referred to as the “Bihar Pension Rules”) is wholly

illegal and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it is prayed that

the impugned order of the disciplinary authority (Annexure-P/9)

as well as the appellate order (Annexure-P/10) be set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State, on the other hand, submits that he agrees with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
6/11

contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner to the extent that

the earlier departmental proceeding initiated pursuant to the

initial charge memo was set aside and a direction was issued by

the appellate authority to conduct a fresh departmental enquiry

in accordance with Rules 17 and 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005.

9. Learned State Counsel further submits that a

bare perusal of the fresh charge memo would make it

abundantly clear that Clause 2 thereof specifically contains the

following allegation against the petitioner:

“ …………...tks vkidh ?kksj
ykijokgh] drZO;ghurk] euekusiu] vkns”kksya?ku]
lafnX/k vkpj.k] LosPBNkpkfjrk ,oa ,d v;ksX;
iqfyl inkf/kdkjh gksus dks n”kkZrk gS
……………...’’.
10. Learned counsel for the State further submits

that the allegation of non-performance of duty is very much a

part of the charge memo. It is submitted that although the

Enquiry Officer did not find the allegation of receiving illegal

gratification against the petitioner to have been proved, there is

a categorical finding in the enquiry report that the petitioner,

being the senior-most officer present at the check-post, failed to

discharge his supervisory duties, on account of which the

alleged incident took place. It is, therefore, contended that the

petitioner's submission that the punishment has been imposed on
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
7/11

a ground different from the charge framed is wholly

misconceived and unsustainable in the eye of law.

11. Learned State Counsel further submits that,

since the petitioner had retired from service during the pendency

of the departmental proceeding, the proceeding was rightly

converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,

and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed.

12. Upon a specific query made by this Court as to

whether the essential ingredients required for invoking Rule

43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules were satisfied in the present

case, learned counsel for the State fairly submits that from the

order-sheet as well as the impugned orders, it does not transpire

that the mandatory ingredients required for exercise of power

under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules were either

recorded or considered.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the

materials available on record, the enquiry report and the relevant

provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, this Court

finds that the charge memo itself contains an allegation relating

to the petitioner's failure to perform his official duties. The

Enquiry Officer has also recorded a categorical finding that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
8/11

petitioner failed to discharge his supervisory responsibilities.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

findings recorded in the enquiry report merely on the ground

urged by the petitioner that the punishment has been imposed on

a charge different from the one contained in the charge memo.

In the second show cause, the petitioner has raised series

different points in his defense but the disciplinary authority have

not considered his explanation in detail. More particularly,

point No.9 and point No. 29 to 50 were not touched by the

disciplinary authority.

14. However, it is an admitted position that the

petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2023. The events giving

rise to the present proceeding pertain to the year 2019. In

connection therewith, Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 81 of 2019 was

instituted on 16.03.2019. On the very same day, the petitioner

was placed under suspension, and Departmental Proceeding No.

62 of 2019 was initiated on 07.06.2019. Although the order of

punishment came to be passed on 03.08.2023, i.e., after the

petitioner's retirement, the departmental proceeding was

consequently converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) read

with section 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The relevant

provision reads as follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
9/11

“43(b). The [Appointment
authority of the post held at the time of
retirement] further reserves 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 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 reemployment after retirement;”

Provided that.-

(a) Such departmental
proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was on duty either before
retirement or during reemployment,

(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 in 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.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
10/11

(b) judicial proceedings, if not
instituted while the Government servant was on
duty either before retirement or during re-
employment, shall have been instituted in
accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a);
and
(c) the Bihar Public Service
Commission shall be consulted before final
orders are passed.
139. (a) The full pension
admissible under the Rules is not to be given as
a matter of course, or unless the service
rendered has been really approved.
(b) If the service has not been
thoroughly satisfactory, the authority
sanctioning the pension should make such
reduction in the amount as it thinks proper.
(c) The [Appointment authority of
the post held at the time of retirement] reserve
to themselves the powers of revising an order
relating to pension passed by subordinate
authorities under the control, if they are
satisfied that the service of the pensioner was
not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was
proof of grave misconduct on his part while in
service. No such power shall however, be
exercised without giving the pensioner
concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause against the action proposed to be taken in
regard to his pension, or any such power shall
be exercised after the expiry of three years form
the date of the order sanctioning the pension
was first passed.]”

15. Upon scrutiny of the impugned order passed by

the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory conditions
Patna High Court CWJC No.13294 of 2025 dt.29-06-2026
11/11

and essential ingredients required for invoking Rule 43(b) read

with section 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules are conspicuously

absent in the present case. Neither the disciplinary authority nor

the appellate authority has recorded any finding satisfying the

jurisdictional requirements contemplated under Rule 43(b) read

with section 139 of Bihar Pension Rules. In absence of such

foundational findings, the deduction of pension under the said

provision cannot be sustained.

16. Accordingly, the order dated 03.08.2023 passed

by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Munger Range,

Munger vide Munger District Order No. 1157 of 2023

(Annexure-P/9), whereby 10% of the petitioner's pension has

been directed to be deducted for a period of five years, as well

as the appellate order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Additional

Director General of Police (Budget, Appeal and Welfare), Bihar,

Patna (Annexure-P/10), are hereby set aside.

17. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

Rakesh/Ashwini
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03/07/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.