Patna High Court
Lakshuman TiwaryversusThe State Of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that the departmental inquiry was unsustainable due to a complete lack of evidence, and therefore the orders of pension forfeiture were set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, former government employees, challenged the forfeiture of a portion of their pension imposed through departmental proceedings, arguing that they had been acquitted in a criminal trial for the same allegations. The departmental inquiry, initiated in 2008, resulted in a show‑cause notice and an order on 30 May 2014 forfeiting 50% of the pension, later reduced to 25% on appeal. The petitioners contended that the inquiry report contained no witness testimony or documentary evidence, rendering the proceedings unsupported. The respondents argued that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal acquittals and that no procedural irregularities were shown. The High Court examined the evidentiary standards applicable to departmental inquiries and found the inquiry report barren of proof, citing Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the court set aside all orders of pension forfeiture and allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to pay the consequential benefits within three months.
Issues considered
- The departmental proceeding can impose pension forfeiture despite the petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal case.
- Whether the departmental inquiry complied with the evidentiary standards and principles of natural justice.
- Whether the order of forfeiture under the Bihar Pension Rules is legally sustainable.
- Whether the writ petition should be entertained to set aside the impugned orders.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules — s. Rule 43B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 419, 420
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 12, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(2), 7, 8
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- pension forfeiture
- acquittal
- evidentiary standards
- natural justice
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
- corruption charges
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2729 of 2017
======================================================
1.1. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Lakshuman Tiwary, Resident of
Biscoman Colony, Dhanuki, P.S. Alamganj, Patna.
1.2. Amitabh Tiwari S.o Late Lakshuman Tiwary, Resident of Biscoman Colony,
Dhanuki, P.S. Alamganj, Patna.
... ... Petitioner.s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary- Cum- Appellate Authority, Department of
Registration Excise and Prohibit
3. Secretary-Cum- Inspector- General, Registration, Government of Bihar,
Patna
4. Inspector of Registration Offices, Patna Division, Patna
... ... Respondent.s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
Mr. Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha. GA-1
Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02.02.2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
‘the petitioner’) filed the instant application challenging the
order dated 30.5.2014 issued under the signature of the
Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna whereby in a
proceeding conducted against the petitioner, it was ordered that
50% of the pension payable to the petitioner would be forfeited.
Further, prayer has been made for quashing the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
2/7
26.8.2014 of the Secretary-cum-Appellate Authority, whereby
the order of punishment was reduced from forfeiture of 50% of
the pension to forfeiture of 25% of the pension. The petitioner
has also challenged the letter dated 5.10.2016 of the IG,
Registration, Bihar and the letter dated 7.12.2016 of the
Assistant IG, Registration, Bihar whereby the order of
punishment has been communicated to the petitioner.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in the
year 2007 he was falsely implicated in Vigilance P.S.Case no. 79
of 2007 registered under the sections 419, 420 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code read with sections 7,8, 12, 13(1)(a)(b) and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case went for
trial vide Special Case no. 50 of 2007 and the same ended in
acquittal of the petitioner, vide judgment dated 30.7.2016 passed
by the learned Special Judge Vigilance 1st, Patna.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was proceeded against for the
charges similar to the allegations levelled against the petitioner
in the vigilance case. He was served with memo of charge dated
16.5.2008 in Prapatra- Ka to which he filed his reply. The
inquiry proceeded and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry
report dated 30.12.2008.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
3/7
5. The respondents authorities differing with the
contents of the inquiry report issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner on 26.3.2014 to which the petitioner submitted his
reply.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner having retired
from service on 31.1.2014, the proceedings were converted into
a proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules.
7. The respondents came out with an order of
punishment dated 30.5.2014 forfeiting 50% of the pension of
the petitioner. On an appeal having been filed by the petitioner,
the Appellate Authority modified the order of punishment of
forfeiture of 50% of pension to that of forfeiture of 25% of
pension. It is against these orders of punishment as also the
communication of the same vide letters dated 5.10.2016 and
7.12.2016 that the instant writ application has been preferred.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was falsely implicated in the vigilance case. On
perusal of the inquiry report, it would transpire that not a single
witness was examined on behalf of the respondents in support of
the charges levelled nor was any document exhibited or proved.
It is further submitted that the charges being similar to that in
the criminal case and the petitioner having been honourably
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
4/7
acquitted vide aforesaid judgment dated 30.7.2016, the
respondents have no case on merits.
9. In response, it is submitted by the counsel for the
respondents that the petitioner was proceeded against in a
departmental proceeding on serious and grave charges. Though
the criminal case may have ended in acquittal, however, it is
well settled that departmental proceedings may still proceed
against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to point
out any procedural irregularities. After giving full opportunity to
the petitioner, the departmental proceeding ended in the order of
punishment. The petitioner has not been able to point out any
illegality in the orders impugned and as such the writ
application be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
11. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding with a
memo of charge having been served on him in Prapatra Ka on
16.5.2008. The petitioner filed his reply to the memo of charges
and the inquiry proceeded wherein the Inquiry Officer came to
submit his inquiry report dated 30.12.2008.
12. It may be observed here that in the criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
5/7
case/FIR lodged against the petitioner for the same/similar
charges, the trial proceeded and in the same the petitioner was
acquitted vide judgment dated 30.7.2016 passed in Special Case
no. 50 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance 1 st Patna.
Relevant portion of the judgment dated 30.7.2016 is reproduced
herein below for ready reference:
“21. In view of the aforesaid prosecution
evidence brought on the record the whole
prosecution case is based only on surmises and
conjectures and there is no supporting evidence
to the prosecution allegation. As such the
prosecution has completely failed to substantiate
the charges framed against any of the accused
persons. Consequently the accused persons
namely Akhilesh Kumar, Surendra Prasad Singh
@ Surendra Prasad, Abhay Kurnar, Radhey
Shyam Singh, Naresh Kumar, Jamun Mahto,
Lalji Prasad, Laxman Tiwary, Shesh Kumar and
Anwar Alam are hereby acquitted from the
charges U/s. 120B r/w.420 I.P.C and S.13(2) of
the P.C Act and U/s.420 I.P.C and S.8 of the P.C.
Act. The accused persons are already on bail,
hence they are also discharged from the
liabilities of their respective bail bonds.”
13. Though it is true that the evidence required in a
criminal case and a departmental proceeding are different in so
far as while in a criminal case charges are to be proved beyond
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
6/7
all reasonable doubts, in a departmental proceedings, the same
are proved on preponderance of probability, however, so far as
the contents of the inquiry report dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure-
3) in the instant case is concerned, it transpires that neither a
single witness has been examined on behalf of the respondents
in support of the charges nor a single document proved or
marked exhibit. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, it is a case of
no evidence against the petitioner.
14. The conduct of the departmental proceedings
and specially the inquiry report is clearly in teeth of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop
Singh Negi versus Punjab Natonal Bank; (2009) 2 SCC 570
and State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha; (2010) 2
SCC 772.
15. Not a single witness having been examined nor
any document or the contents thereof marked exhibit or proved
in course of the departmental proceeding the case is fit to be
allowed on this point alone.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
above, the orders impugned dated 30.5.2014 (Annexure-6), the
appellate order dated 26.8.2014 (Annexure-7) as also the two
letters communicating the order to the petitioner ie letter dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.2729 of 2017 dt.02.02.2026
7/7
5.10.2016 (Annexure-9) and the letter dated 7.12.2016
(Annexure-10) are all unsustainable and are hereby set aside.
17. The writ application is allowed with 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.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash
AFR.NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 4.2.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…