Patna High Court
Yogendra PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that recovery of the illegally received salary is justified, but the stoppage of two increments under the CCA Rules, 2005 cannot be imposed on a retired employee, and the Nawal Kishore Singh precedent does not apply.
Summary
Yogendra Prasad, a retired statistician, was alleged to have altered his date of birth from 1961 to 1964, thereby drawing salary for three extra years. A departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated, resulting in an order that stopped two salary increments and directed recovery of the excess salary with interest. The petitioner challenged the order, claiming lack of jurisdiction and violation of the CCA Rules, 2005, and relied on the Nawal Kishore Singh case. The State argued that the petitioner committed fraud and that the order was proper. The High Court held that the allegation of forgery was substantiated, recovery of the illegally received money was justified, but the penalty of stopping increments under the CCA Rules could not be imposed on a retired employee, and the Nawal Kishore Singh precedent was inapplicable. Consequently, the court expunged the increment‑stoppage portion of the order, affirmed the recovery direction, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- When can a departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules be applied to a retired employee?
- Whether a penalty of stoppage of salary increments under the CCA Rules, 2005 is permissible against a retired employee.
- Whether the precedent set in Nawal Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar is applicable to the present facts.
- Whether the recovery of salary received through alleged forgery is within the jurisdiction of the department.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 43(b)
Subjects
- departmental inquiry
- pension rules
- forgery
- date of birth fraud
- salary recovery
- CCA Rules
- retirement
- jurisdiction
- increment stoppage
- punishment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.304 of 2025
======================================================
Yogendra Prasad son of Late Phulena Sah, Resident of Mohalla- Purani
Chowk, Ward No. 20, Sri Krishna Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Gopalganj, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Health Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director-in-Chief, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gopalganj, District-
Gopalganj.
4. The Additional Chief Medical Officer cum Inquiry Officer, Gopalganj,
District- Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
Md. Farooq, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-04-2026
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed with
the following reliefs:
“i. For issuance of an
appropriate Writ/Writs direction/directions
in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the
order dated 18/10/2024, issued by
Respondent no.03, vide his office order
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
2/8
bearing memo no. 2321 whereby penalty of
stoppage of two increments with cumulative
effect from 09/03/2019 was imposed upon
the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules and he was directed to
deposit all illegal withdrawals with interest
within 15 days.
ii. Any other writ/writs,
order/orders or direction/directions as the
facts and circumstances of the case may
require and deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court
may also be issued.”
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the order, which is impugned dated 18.10.2024, is
absolutely a non-jurisdictional order as this order cannot be
passed in a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules, 1950. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has committed no wrong as alleged in the order.
He submits that the departmental proceeding has been
conducted absolutely in gross violation of the established Rule.
There is violation of Rules 17(3) and 17(4) of the Bihar
Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CCA Rules, 2005’).
Subsequently, violation of Rules 17(14), Rule 18(2) and 18(3) of
the CCA Rules, 2005. Counsel submits that upon appearance of
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
3/8
the petitioner in the departmental proceeding neither inquiry
report has been submitted nor second show-cause has been
demanded and final order has been passed. Learned Counsel
further submits that the nature of the order which has been
passed cannot be passed in a proceeding under 43(b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. In support of his argument, he relied
on the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Nawal Kishore Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and
Others (CWJC No.226 of 2015) dated 09.08.2016, where the
law has been laid down that no punishment order can be
imposed with retrospective effect nor any punishment as
envisaged under the CCA Rules, 2005 can be imposed on a
retired employee. Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Full Bench
has already decided that even though a proceeding initiated in
service period can be continued post retirement, but the nature
of punishment is different and no penalties as envisaged under
the CCA Rules, 2005 can be imposed. Counsel submits that here
in the present case, penalty has been imposed which is not
permissible and, hence, on the point of law and the law decided
by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner is entitled for all the reliefs
which have been mentioned hereinabove.
4. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
4/8
hand, submits that the case of the petitioner is of different
nature. He submits that the petitioner has committed fraud and
by committing manipulation in the date of birth he had extended
the date from 28.01.1961 to 28.01.1964 and it is due to this
reason he has worked excessively, i.e., for about three years.
Counsel submits that show-cause has been issued and he was
directed to appear before the authority, but instead of
appearance he had taken leave and never appeared. Paper
publication has also been made and when department started
proceeding against him even after retirement, then only he
appeared. Learned Counsel further submits that from perusal of
the order, it becomes crystal clear that only the excessive
payment which he has received due to forgery committed by
him has been demanded to be returned back otherwise
proceeding has been dropped. Learned Counsel further submits
that the judgment on which the petitioner is relying, i.e., Nawal
Kishore Singh (supra), is not applicable in the case of the
petitioner due to the reason that factual matrix of this case is
different from the case on which the petitioner is relying.
Counsel submits that in the earlier case, he was subjected to
departmental proceeding not on the ground of forgery.
5. Upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
5/8
the record, it transpires to this Court that the petitioner was
working on the post of Statistician in the office of the District
Family Welfare Bureau, Gopalganj, and from the said office he
attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2024, considering
his date of birth as 28.01.1964. The basic allegation against him
is that he made interpolation in his records and, instead of his
actual date of birth being 28.01.1961, he altered it to
28.01.1964. When this matter came to light, the officials issued
a show-cause notice to him.
6. From the order sheet as well as the pleadings,
it further transpires that a suspension letter was issued to him
and Prapatra ‘Ka’ was also served; however, the petitioner
proceeded on leave until his retirement. A Conducting Officer
was appointed in the departmental proceeding, and a show-
cause notice was sent to him through registered post on
29.01.2022, but the same was returned with the remark that the
petitioner was not at home and had refused to accept it.
Subsequently, the Vigilance Office of the Bihar School
Examination Committee, Patna, upon request, sent a report vide
Letter No. 960 dated 20.02.2024 regarding his date of birth,
wherein it was confirmed that the petitioner’s actual date of
birth is 28.01.1961. Thereafter, the Additional Chief Medical
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
6/8
Officer, Gopalganj, directed that the petitioner be restrained
from drawing his salary and that his retiral benefits also be
withheld. Since the petitioner had already retired, the
departmental proceeding was converted into one under Rule
43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules vide Memo No. 1538 dated
12.07.2024 issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical
Officer, Gopalganj. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued,
and subsequently, an order was passed. The impugned order,
which is annexed as Annexure-P/16, reads as follows:
“Jh ;ksxsUæ çlkn] rRdkyhu
lka[;krk] vij eq[; fpfdRlk inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy;
xksikyxat ds çkIr vekU; nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij cpko
cukdj vius lsokeqä esa vafdr tUe frfFk esa
NsM+NkM+ ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h dj djhc 03 o"kZ rd vukf/kd`r
:i ls dk;Z dj osru fudklh dk vkjksi gSA budk ;g
—R; ljdkjh lsod ds vkpj.k ds fo:) gSA mijksä ds
vkyksd esa v|ksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 240 fnukad
23-01-2024 }kjk bUgsa lsok dky ¼QthZ½ esa fuyafcr fd;k
x;k FkkA ckj ckj fucaf/kr Mkd }kjk buds foHkkxh;
tk¡p ds fy, cqykus ij t‚p inkf/kdkjh ds le{k
mifLFkr ugha gq,A iqu% v|ksgLrk{kjh }kjk vius Kkikad
1538 fnukad 12-07- 2024 }kjk lsok lafgrk 43 ¼[k½
ds }kjk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh 'kq: dh xbZA çsl foKfIr ds
}kjk lwpuk nsus ij fnukad 16-08-2024 dks t‚p dfeVh
ds le{k mifLFkr gq,A dfeVh }kjk vius Kkikad 128
fnukad 28-09-2024 dks fn;s x;s vius çfrosnu esa bu
ij yxs lHkh vkjksiksa dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
7/8
mijksä of.kZr ifjfLFkfr esa buds
}kjk fn;s x;s tUe frfFk ds lq/kkj ds vkosnu dh frfFk
fnukad 09-03-2019 ls nks osru o`f) ij lap;kRed :i
ls jksd yxkrs gq, lHkh voS/k fudklh dks C;kt
lfgr ,d eqLr 15 fnuksa ds vUnj tek djus dk vkns'k
nsrs gq, foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh lekIr dh tkrh gSA lsokUr
ykHk Hkqxrku dk fu.kZ; ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa py
jgs okn ds QykQy ds ckn fu.kZ; fy;k tk,xkA
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it
transpires that the allegation of forgery and interpolation in the
date of birth has been alleged to be made against him due to
which he has taken salary and continued in his service for three
years more for which he was not entitled lawfully. This Court is
of the view that when allegation of forgery and fraud in the date
of birth has been alleged is 28.01.1961, this Court on perusal of
the order impugned finds that it is true that no such punishment
is prescribed under CCA Rules, 2005 as punishment. But from
the order it transpires that only recovery of that money, which
he has illegally taken either as salary or by way of promotion,
has been directed to be deducted but proceeding has been
dropped.
8. It is also made clear that the increment of
salary with two cumulative effect has also been directed to be
stopped with interest. This Court upon perusal of the order
impugned, deems it fit that the excessive money has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.304 of 2025 dt.15-04-2026
8/8
directed to be taken by committing fraud. So far as his
increment of salary with cumulative effect is concerned, this
Court hereby expunged this remark but affirmed the order for
recovery of the money during the excessive period in which he
has illegally earned by committing fraud by way of changing his
date of birth.
9. So far as the judgment of Nawal Kishore
Singh (supra) is concerned, is not applicable in the opinion of
this Court due to the reason that the allegation of forgery and
interpolation in the date of birth is not the subject matter in the
case of Nawal Kishore Singh (supra).
10. With the aforesaid observations and
modifications, this writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…