Patna High Court
Shiv Nandan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The punishment order was set aside as it was beyond the scope of Rule 43(b), and the petitioner is entitled to full pension and related benefits.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Executive Magistrate, challenged a disciplinary order that deducted 10% of his pension for life under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, alleging that the misconduct cited occurred more than four years before the proceedings and that no proof of wrongdoing existed. He also contested the dismissal of his review application. The High Court examined the applicability of Rule 43(b), which permits post‑retirement action only for misconduct within four years of the notice, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar v. Mohd. Idris Ansari. The Court held that the alleged misconduct fell outside the four‑year window, rendering the disciplinary proceeding ultra vires. Consequently, the punishment order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to receive his full pension and all related benefits. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a disciplinary proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is valid when the alleged misconduct occurred beyond four years prior to the initiation of the proceeding.
- Whether the 10% pension deduction order is within the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority.
- Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's review application was proper.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to full pension and other pensionary benefits after the punishment order is set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 139(a), Rule 139(b), Rule 43(b)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- pension deduction
- Rule 43(b)
- gross misconduct
- post‑retirement disciplinary action
- Article 226
- civil writ jurisdiction
- public service
- jurisdiction
- review dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1378 of 2025
======================================================
Shiv Nandan Singh S/o Jhingo Singh, R/o Village- Madhurapur, Near Middle
School, Ward No- 15, P.S- Madhurapur, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Block-4,
Behind Sinchai Bhawan, Patna-800015.
2. The Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Block-4, Behind Sinchai Bhawan,
Patna-800015.
3. The Additional Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Block-4. Behind Sinchai
Bhawan, Patna- 800015.
4. The Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare
Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Block-4, Behind Sinchai
Bhawan, Patna-800015.
5. The Director, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Block-4, Behind Sinchai Bhawan,
Patna-800015.
6. The Inquiry Officer-cum-Deputy Director Welfare, Kosi Division
7. The District Officer, Supaul.
8. The Accountant General Officer A and E, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aditya Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Bhatnagar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, SC 26
Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, AC to SC 26
Mr. Divit Vinod, AC to SC 26
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 08-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The writ petition has been filed for the following
relief:-
“1. That the Petitioner seeks to invoke the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
2/8
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for the following relief(s):-
A. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/Rule(s)/direction(s) in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the punishment order of the
Disciplinary Authority issued by the Respondent
No. 4, Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government
of Bihar vide order dated 25.05.2024 bearing
Memo No. 2022-2493 dated 31.05.2024 whereby
and whereunder Petitioner has been punished with
10 per cent pension deduction for the entire lifetime
as under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules
without any application of mind and without
proving the misconduct of the petitioner.
B. For issuance of an appropriate
writ(s)/Rule(s)/direction(s) in the nature of
Certiorari for quashing the order of the Respondent
No. 3, Additional Secretary. Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government
of Bihar vide order dated 29.08.2024 bearing
Memo No. 2022-4213 dated 30.08.2024 whereby
and whereunder the review application of the
Petitioner has been dismissed without considering
the facts and circumstances of this case.
C. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the full payment of the
retirement benefits to the Petitioner and all other
consequential monetary benefits and promotions
due to the Petitioner for the period of withholding
of 10% of the retirement benefits of the Petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
3/8
D. For passing such further or other
order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner got retired from service on 31.01.2021 from the post
of Executive Magistrate, Areraj, East Champaran and for an
allegation dated 16.03.2018, the memo of charge was issued in
the year 2022, which was duly signed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Veerpur, as contained in Memo No. 827-2 dated
30.04.2022.
4. It has next been submitted that the allegation
leveled against the petitioner is in no way connected with the
petitioner as neither the Jamabandi in question was created by
him nor any direction for ensuring possession was ever issued to
the petitioner while he was in service. By referring to the
allegations as leveled in the memo of charge (Annexure-P/5
Series), even the authorities before initiating the proceeding in
question under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, has
not been able to show any pecuniary loss caused to the State
Government, by the conduct of the petitioner to construe the
same as gross misconduct for justifying the proceedings
initiated against the petitioner, in which the impugned
punishment order is said to have passed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
4/8
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this
Court to the scope of initiation of any departmental proceeding
under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules submits that the
allegation for which the departmental proceeding, which is said
to have been initiated, relates to a period which is beyond four
years and this issue has already been considered by this Court in
various judgments relying upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex
Court, rendered in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs.
Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56, wherein
it has been categorically held that for an allegation causing
pecuniary loss to the Government would fall within the ambit of
gross misconduct after retirement, and the allegation for which
the proceedings are sought to be initiated, should not be related
to the period beyond four years, have only been brought within
the scope of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and
only in such cases, the proceeding under relevant Rules of the
Bihar Pension Rule, can be undertaken but, from perusal of the
memo of charge based, on which the enquiry in question, is said
to have been initiated, consequent to which the impugned
punishment order dated 31.05.2024, appended as Annexure -P/9
which is contained in Memo No. 2493, is said to have been
passed, cannot be sanctioned in law and is wholly without
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
5/8
jurisdiction and furthermore, does not fall within the scope of
the provisions under which the enquiry in question is said to
have been initiated.
6. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Idris
Ansari (supra) reads as follows:-
------- “10. So far as the second type of cases
is concerned the proof of grave misconduct on the part of
the concerned Government servant during his service
tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional
authority from the departmental proceedings or judicial
proceedings which might have taken place during his
service tenure or from departmental proceedings which
may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of
cases. But such departmental proceedings will have to
comply with the requirements of Rule 43(b).
Consequently a retired Government servant can be found
guilty of grave misconduct during his service career
pursuant to the departmental proceedings conducted
against him even after his retirement, but such
proceedings could be initiated in connection with only
such misconduct which might have taken place within 4
years of the initiation of such departmental proceedings
against him. In the present case, the respondent retired on
31.1.1993 and the show cause notice was issued on the
ground of grave misconduct on 27.09.1993 and not on the
ground that service record of the pensioner was not
thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued by the State
Government as sanctioning authority. It had, therefore to
be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice therefore, could
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
6/8
cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to
27.09.1993 meaning thereby it should have been
committed during the period from 26.09.1989 upto
31.01.1993 when respondent retired. Only in case of such
a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been
initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). In such
proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct he
could have been properly proceeded against under Rule
139(a) and (b). On the facts of the present case it must be
held, agreeing with the High Court that the notice dated
27.09.1993 invoking powers under Rule 139(a) and (b)
was issued wholly on the ground of alleged past
misconduct and was not based on the ground that service
record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory.
So far as that ground was concerned, on a conjoint
reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is no escape
from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was
committed by the respondent prior to 4 years from the
date on which show cause notice dated 27.09.1993 was
issued, the appellant authority had no power to invoke
Rule 139(a) and (b) against the respondent on the ground
of proved misconduct. Consequently, it had to be held
that proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly
incompetent. The High Court was equally justified in
quashing the final order dated 13.12.1993 as there is no
proof of such a misconduct. No question of remanding the
proceedings under Rule 139(a) and (b) would survive as
the alleged grave misconduct could not be established in
any departmental proceedings after expiry of four years
from 1986-87 as such proceedings would be clearly
barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii). Consequently the
show cause notice dated 27.09.1993 will have to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
7/8
treated as stillborn and ineffective from its inception.
Such a notice cannot be resorted to for supporting any
fresh proceedings by way of remand. For all these
reasons no case is made for our interference in this
appeal. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed. There
is no order as to costs.”
7. Considering the fact that the enquiry against the
petitioner, which is said to have been initiated is not in respect
to an event, which is within a period of four years rather it is
beyond that and, in view of the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as well as of this Court rendered in the case of State
of Bihar and Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra), this Court
finds that the punishment order which is based on the memo of
charge (Annexure-P/5), which reflects the allegations related to
the period beyond four years, as such the same being not within
the scope of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 and,
accordingly, the punishment order passed vide order dated
25.05.2024, which is contained in Memo No. 2022-2493 dated
31.05.2024, is set aside.
8. It is made clear that since the enquiry, in question,
which is said to have been initiated against the petitioner
including the impugned punishment, has been held to be without
jurisdiction, and has already been set aside, as such, the
petitioner is held entitled to full pension and other pensionary
Patna High Court CWJC No.1378 of 2025(3) dt.08-01-2026
8/8
benefits, which is required to be settled in favour of the
petitioner, for which necessary orders shall be passed forthwith.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the
writ petition stands allowed.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U
Checking your session…