Patna High Court
Kaushal Kishore VermaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The order dated 12 April 2021 forfeiting the petitioner’s pension under Rule 43(b) is set aside as it is beyond the scope of the rule.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired Junior Engineer, challenged an order dated 12 April 2021 that forfeited his pension and salary arrears under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. He argued that the departmental proceeding did not find him guilty of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss, making the punishment beyond the scope of Rule 43(b). The State contended that the proceeding was properly converted to a Rule 43(b) case after the petitioner’s retirement and that he had been given ample opportunity to appear, which he ignored. The Court examined the earlier order of 25 February 2020 and the procedural history, concluding that no finding of grave misconduct existed and the order exceeded the rule’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court set aside the 12 April 2021 order, remitted the matter to the Engineer‑in‑Chief to conduct a fresh proceeding within six months, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the forfeiture of pension under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 is valid absent a finding of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.
- Whether the conversion of the departmental proceeding into a Rule 43(b) proceeding after the petitioner’s retirement was lawful.
- Whether the order dated 12 April 2021 falls within the jurisdictional ambit of Rule 43(b).
- Whether the interlocutory application for provisional pension was infructuous.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 43(a), Rule 43(b)
Subjects
- pension forfeiture
- Rule 43(b)
- Bihar Pension Rules
- departmental inquiry
- grave misconduct
- civil writ jurisdiction
- superannuation
- provisional pension
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13989 of 2022
======================================================
Kaushal Kishore Verma son of Late Kameshwar Prasad, Resident of Road
No. 8, Rajiv Nagar, P.S. Rajiv Nagar at and District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, South Bihar (Yatayat), Upbhog, Public Works
Department, Patna.
4. Superintending Engineer, Road Construction Circle, Magadh Pramandal,
Department, Government of Bihar, Gaya.
5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division - 1, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Gaya.
6. The Provident Fund Officer-cum-Treasury Officer, Gaya.
7. The Accountant General (A and E), Bihar at Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate
Ms. Pratima Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Priti Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. K. K. Singh, A.C. to G.P. 22
For the Accountant General : Mrs. Ritika Rani, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
Heard the the parties.
I.A. No. 01 of 2025
2. The present Interlocutory Application has been
filed for directing the respondent concerned to pay provisional
pension to the petitioner during the pendency of the writ
petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
2/10
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
now the present interlocutory application has become
infructuous, therefore, he is not pressing the same. Accordingly,
I.A. No. 01 of 2025 is dismissed as infructuous.
CWJC No. 13989 of 2022
4. The present writ petition has been filed for
quashing the Office Order No. 67 dated 12.04.2021 issued under
the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, whereby the pension of the
petitioner and salary for the period 07.10.2013 to 31.10.2019,
i.e. till the date of retirement of the petitioner have been
forfeited, in terms of Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
1950 and further prayer has been made for commanding the
respondents to pay the entire outstanding post-retiral dues and
arrears of the salary to the petitioner.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner after serving in the department,
superannuated w.e.f. 31.10.2019 as a Junior Engineer, in the
office of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division
No.1., Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar,
Gaya.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
3/10
further submits that earlier a departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner vide Office Order No. 56 dated
20.03.2017, issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief,
Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, for
the alleged charge that the petitioner was absent from his duty
since 07.10.2013 and after availing earned leave till 30.10.2013,
he has not reported before the Executive Engineer, Road
Construction Division-1, Road Construction Department,
Government of Bihar, Gaya. It is specific contention of the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that no departmental
proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for any event
after his superannuation. The departmental proceeding
ultimately concluded and vide office order contained in Memo
No. 1779 dated 25.02.2020 the Engineer-in-Chief, Road
Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
proceeded to pass punishment order under Rule-43(a) of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 whereby the entire pension of the
petitioner, including the salary for the period 07.10.2013 to
31.10.2019 was directed to be forfeited.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner challenged the said punishment order
dated 25.02.2020 by filing a writ petition before this Court,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
4/10
which was numbered as C.W.J.C No.7700 of 2020 and a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2021, after
considering the submission made on behalf of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, proceeded to set aside the order
contained in Memo No. 1779 dated 25.02.2020 and liberty was
granted to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance
with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipts/production of a copy of the order. In compliance of the
order dated 12.03.2021 passed in C.W.J.C. No.7700 of 2020, the
respondents instead of conducting a fresh departmental
proceeding, proceeded to pass fresh order contained in Memo
No. 2950 dated 12.04.2021 issued under the signature of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna in which same punishment was awarded,
however, instead of Rule- 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
1950 the order was passed under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950.
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the impugned order dated 12.04.2021 is in
teeth of the provisions contained in Rule-43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules which provides that “the State Government
further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
5/10
withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently
or for a specified period, and the right or ordering the recovery
from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss
created 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.”
9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
further submits that under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950, the punishment which has been awarded by
impugned order dated 12.04.2021, cannot be awarded since
even in the earlier order dated 25.02.2020, the disciplinary
authority has not recorded his finding that the petitioner has
been found guilty of grave misconduct or any of his action has
caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or
negligence during his entire service period. The learned senior
counsel for the petitioner finally submits that the punishment
order dated 12.04.2021 is wholly without jurisdiction.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner
refers to and relies on a judgment dated 17.05.2019 passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3956 of 2014
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
6/10
wherein the learned Single Judge after considering the
submissions made by the parties came to the conclusion that:
“From a bare reading of Rule 43(b) of
the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as also
considering the law laid down by this
Hon'ble Court, in the aforesaid
judgments referred to herein above in
the preceding paragraphs, this Court
finds that the punishments inflicted
upon the petitioner by the impugned
judgment dated 23.09.2013 regarding
recovery of the salary pertaining to his
entire service period and rejection of
the claim of the petitioner for
pensionary benefits, do not fall within
the ambit of the punishment which can
be awarded under Rule Patna High
Court CWJC No.3956 of 2014 dt.05-
07-2019 43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950, hence on this ground as
well the impugned order dated
23.09.2013 is liable to be set aside and
is accordingly quashed”
11. Per contra the learned counsel for the State
submits that in compliance of the order dated 12.03.2021 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 7700 of 2020, the disciplinary authority has
passed fresh order under the provision of 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950, since the earlier order was passed due to
inadvertence and instead of Rule-43(b), Rule-43(a) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950 was recorded in the concluding portion of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
7/10
the order dated 25.02.2020, though in paragraph no.4 of the said
order it has correctly been mentioned as 43(b).
12. The learned counsel for the State further
submits that the departmental proceeding was initiated against
the petitioner for certain charges on 20.03.2017, which was
converted into the proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules, 1950 on 25.11.2019, since the petitioner retired
on 31.10.2019. During earlier departmental proceeding, every
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to appear and contest
in the departmental proceeding, but the petitioner did not do the
same and kept on delaying the departmental proceeding on one
pretext or the other. Before closing the enquiry proceeding, last
chance was given to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer on
23.01.2019, with a direction to the petitioner, to appear on
22.02.2019, wherein it was stipulated that the order will be
passed ex-parte in the departmental enquiry. Even paper
publication was done and the same was also uploaded on the
official website of the department, but the petitioner did not
appear in the said departmental enquiry.
13. The learned State counsel further submits that
even opportunity of filing reply to the second show cause was
given to the petitioner on 17.07.2019, but the petitioner did not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
8/10
choose to do so and he raised question with regard to conversion
of the departmental proceeding into proceeding under Rule-
43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
14. After having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and after going through the documents available on
record, this Court finds that no doubt, a departmental
proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and opportunity
was given to him, but for the reasons best known to the
petitioner, he choose not to participate in the same and pursuant
to the retirement of the petitioner, the same was converted into
the proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,
1950. From perusal of the Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950, it would transpire that the State Government
reserves the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or any
part of it whether permanently or for a specified period and also
reserves the right of ordering the recovery from pension of the
whole or part for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government,
if the person concerned is found in a departmental proceeding or
a judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or
to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct
or negligence, during his service including service rendered on
re-employment after retirement. In the present case, from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
9/10
order dated 25.02.2020, issued under the signature of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna, it would transpire that in the entire order
nowhere he came to the conclusion that the petitioner was found
guilty of grave misconduct during the entire departmental
proceeding or any pecuniary loss has been caused to the
government, due to action on the part of the petitioner. From the
order impugned contained in Memo No. 2950 dated 12.04.2021,
it does not appear that the order fall within the ambit of the
punishment which can be awarded under Rule 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
15. Accordingly, the order contained in Memo No.
2950 dated 12.04.2021 issued under the signature of the
Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna is set aside.
16. The matter is remitted back to the Engineer-in-
Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna to proceed afresh in the matter as per the provisions
contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
17. The entire exercise must be completed within a
period of six months from the date of production/receipt of the
copy of the order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13989 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
10/10
18. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna will take into
consideration the fact that the petitioner has already retired on
31.10.2019 and his entire pension has been forfeited and even
salary for the period between 07.10.2013 to 31.10.2019 has not
been paid. It goes without saying that the petitioner will be
given opportunity to defend himself in the departmental
proceeding.
19. With the aforementioned observations and
directions, the presentation writ petition stands disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
abhishek
ajay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…