Patna High Court
Shambhu PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The disciplinary authority acted within its powers, but the imposed punishment was exorbitant and not maintaining parity, thus it was reduced to a 10% pension deduction for one year.
Summary
Shambhu Prasad, a former Assistant Engineer, challenged a departmental order that deducted 20% of his pension for three years despite two inquiry reports finding him not guilty. He argued that the second show‑cause notice and the punishment violated natural justice, the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, and the principle of parity, as similarly situated junior and executive engineers received only a 10% deduction for one year. The State contended that the disciplinary authority was within its power to differ from inquiry reports and that procedural requirements were met. The High Court held that the authority correctly recorded reasons for differing from the inquiry reports and considered the petitioner’s replies, but found the punishment excessive and not maintaining parity. Consequently, the court reduced the penalty to a 10% pension deduction for one year and disposed of the writ petition, noting that the applicability of Section 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 was not raised for consideration.
Issues considered
- The legality of issuing a second show‑cause notice and imposing punishment despite exonerating inquiry reports.
- Whether the disciplinary authority complied with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and principles of natural justice.
- Whether the punishment of 20% pension deduction for three years is excessive and violates the parity principle.
- The applicability of Section 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 to the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Section 43B
Subjects
- departmental proceedings
- natural justice
- parity
- pension deduction
- Bihar CCA Rules
- disciplinary action
- show-cause notice
- excessive punishment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.361 of 2025
======================================================
Shambhu Prasad S/o Late Devi Lal, Resident of 3E Sakaar Palm Greens Apt,
Mainpura Danapur Nizamat, Vaishali Gas Agency, Saguna More, P.O. and
P.S.- Danapur, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-In-Chief, Flood Control and Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
6. The Joint Secretary, Management, Water Resources Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
7. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Creation, Water Resources Department,
Darbhanga.
8. The Chief Engineer, Flood Control and Water Drainage, Water Resources
Department, Muzaffarpur.
9. The Superintending Engineer, Design, Planning and Monitoring Circle,
Darbhanga.
10. The Executive Engineer, Planning and Monitoring Division, Darbhanga.
11. The Accountant General Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
12. The Treasury Officer, Patna.
13. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 23-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
2/11
quashing the Notification No.2039 dated 25.10.2024 issued by
the Deputy Secretary by which the punishment has been
imposed against the petitioner for withholding of 20% of
pension for three years. Further prayer has been made for
quashing the letter No.2556 dated 08.11.2022 by which the
second show-cause notice has been issued against the petitioner
by which inspite of the fact that inquiry officer appointed by the
Departmental Authorities, on the basis of material available on
record, petitioner was not found guilty from the charges levelled
against him. Third prayer has been made for quashing the show-
cause notice (Prapatra- Ka) as contained in resolution No.1129
dated 07.06.2019. Further prayer has been made to quash the
entire departmental proceeding conducted against the petitioner
on account of illegal order with direction to make payment of
entire amount of pension along with statutory interest @ 18 %
per annum along with any other consequential benefits for
which the petitioner is entitled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in the year 2017, the petitioner was posted as Assistant
Engineer, Bagmati, Sub-Division-3, Sheohar (Bagmati Right
Bank 45.3 – 52.92 KM) and was given extra additional charge
of Bagmati Sub-Division Piprahi (Bagmati Right Bank 15.240 –
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
3/11
32.705 KM), Bagmati Sub-Division No.1, Sheohar ( 32.705 –
38.825 KM) and also extra additional incharge of Flood Control
Cell during that period.
4. Counsel further submits that Prapatra-Ka has
been issued against the petitioner vide letter No.2019 dated
15.11.2017, in which certain charges were levelled against the
petitioner. He further submits that soon after receiving the show-
cause notice, the petitioner has filed his reply with all materials,
but he was very surprised that after about one and half year, the
department has issued another Resolution No.1129 dated
07.06.2019 by which another Prapatra-Ka has been issued
against the petitioner and they had decided to initiate
departmental proceeding against the petitioner.
5. Counsel further submits that memo of charge
was vague and some of the charges were substituted with pre-
determined mind. He further submits that after six months of the
proceeding, the department has appointed new Conducting
Officer on 30.12.2019 who has submitted inquiry report on
13.01.2020 and found not guilty and in this regard, submitted
report vide letter No.53 dated 16.03.2020. He further submits
that after about two years 8 months, another letter was issued on
08.11.2022 by which the Disciplinary Authority was differing
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
4/11
from the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer directed to take
steps for examination and cross-examination.
6. Counsel further submits that after second inquiry
report, the petitioner was served second show-cause in which
report of the second Inquiry Officer was submitted. He further
submits that in the second show-cause dated 08.11.2022, the
Disciplinary Authority has directed to file second show-cause
differing from the second inquiry report dated 23.08.2022.
7. Counsel further submits that in compliance of
the second show-cause, the petitioner has filed reply to the same
on 01.12.2022 in which he has taken all the points, but
thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has passed final order
contained in Notification No.2039 dated 25.10.2024 in which he
has been imposed punishment of deduction of 20% of pension
for 3 years as during the pendency of the departmental
proceeding, the petitioner was retired.
8. Counsel further submits that the decision of
issuance of second show-cause even after his exoneration from
two inquiry reports, is absolutely bad in law. He further submits
that the second show-cause dated 08.11.2022 is also bad in law
due to the reason that the letter No.1281 dated 27.09.2017 does
not contain anything, which has been alleged in the second
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
5/11
show-cause. He further submits that none of his points were
considered in the final order and the Disciplinary Authority at
the time of passing final order, has only stated that no new fact
has been submitted, therefore, his second show-cause has been
rejected and imposed punishment upon him. He further submits
that it is a gross violation of natural justice as well as violation
of the rule established under Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. He also
submits that the issuance of show-cause differing from the
inquiry report is also in violation of the rule laid down. He
further submits that not only this rather for the same wrong, the
Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer all
were subjected to the departmental proceeding. He further
submits that in the departmental proceeding, the punishment
imposed upon Junior Engineer and Executive Engineer was only
10% deduction of pension for one year, but for the petitioner
who was working as Assistant Engineer, imposed punishment of
deduction of 20% of pension for 3 years, reasons best known to
the Disciplinary Authority. He further submits that the parity has
also not been maintained.
9. In support of his argument, counsel for the
petitioner relied on judgment of this Hon’ble Court reported in
the case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar &
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
6/11
Ors. reported in 2026(2) PLJR 170 and submits that the
disciplinary proceeding being quasi-judicial in nature, it is
incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record reasons and
to indicate as to why the explanation or reply submitted by the
delinquent officer has been rejected, as on this ground, this
Hon’ble Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav (supra) has
set aside the order passed by the authorities and ensure payment
of admissible retiral dues to petitioner.
10. Counsel further relied in the case of Roop
Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in 2009(2)
SCC 570, in which it has been categorically held that mere
production of documents without examination of witnesses
would not be valid evidence.
11. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that
here in the present case, there is no ingredients of Section 43B
of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950 as for the purpose of
applicability of Section 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950,
he has to show two ingredients.
12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the entire departmental proceeding has been
done completely in accordance with law and there is no
violation of any norms established. He further submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
7/11
under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it is well-within the power of
the Disciplinary Authority to remand the matter before the
Inquiry Authority, if the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied
from the inquiry report. Therefore, he submits that referring the
matter before the inquiry authority for taking evidence,
examination and cross-examination, is completely in accordance
with law and there is no illegality in the same. He further
submits that under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, it is well-within
the power of the Disciplinary Authority that he may vary upon
receiving of the report of the Inquiry Authority under Rule
17(23) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the only restriction
casted upon him at the time of differing from the inquiry report,
he has to assign the reason in the second show-cause.
13. Counsel further submits that in the second
show-cause on which the petitioner submits that the show-cause
is bad, is basically a Letter dated 08.11.2022. He further submits
that in the said letter, the Disciplinary Authority has
categorically mentioned that he is partially dissatisfied from the
opinion of the Inquiry Officer and on the point of
dissatisfaction, he has referred Letter No.1281 dated
27.09.2017. He also submits that the content of the letter has
also been quoted in the show-cause. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
8/11
said letter has already been served with the charge memo to the
counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that once the
letter has been placed before him, then in that case, onus is upon
him to produce the said letter before the Court.
14. Counsel for the State further submits that from
the order impugned i.e., the order of punishment, particularly
Annexure-P/8 of the writ petition, whatever the points
mentioned by the delinquent/petitioner has been taken into
consideration and all those points were separately analyzed in
the said order and only thereafter, the final order has been
passed.
15. Counsel for the petitioner on this point submits
that for the same wrong, the departmental proceeding has been
initiated against the Junior Engineer, Assistant Engineer and
Executive Engineer, but different punishment has been imposed
upon them. The punishment for Junior Engineer and Executive
Engineer was only 10% deduction of pension for one year, but
for the Assistant Engineer (petitioner) who was imposed
deduction of 20% of pension for 3 years. On this point, he kept
mum at present because there is no response of the State in the
counter-affidavit.
16. Upon hearing the parties, particularly, on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
9/11
point that there were two charge memos issued against the
petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that under Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005, there is no bar that more than one charge memo
can be issued against any of the delinquent. This Court is also of
the view that it is well-within the power of the disciplinary
authority that if the Disciplinary Authority is dissatisfied with
the inquiry report then, he can direct the Inquiry Authority to
take further inquiry on the deficiency pointed out. It is also well-
within the power of the Disciplinary Authority that he may
remand back the matter before the same Inquiry Authority or
another Inquiry Authority. But at the time of taking decision on
the issuance of show-cause, the Disciplinary Authority upon
receiving the report under Rule 17(23) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005 has to record its reason if the Disciplinary Authority
disagrees with the finding of the inquiry authority on any article
of charge.
17. Upon perusal of the issuance of show-cause, it
transpires to this Court that the Disciplinary Authority has
assigned the show-cause, therefore, this Court is of the firm
view that differing from the inquiry report by the Disciplinary
Authority with the reasoning is well-within law. From the
record, it also transpires that the delinquent has filed a detailed
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
10/11
reply of the second show-cause. From the order, it has
categorically been mentioned in the final order that each and
every point were firstly placed by the authority in the order
sheet and thereafter, every point was meticulously examined by
him and then only, order has been passed. Therefore, this Court
is of the firm view that there is no question of non-consideration
of the points mentioned in the second show-cause by the
delinquent.
18. But so far as the parity at the time of imposing
punishment is concerned, this Court totally agrees on the
argument made by the counsel for the petitioner that for the
same wrong, with same set of allegation, departmental
proceeding has been initiated against all three Engineers, but in
the punishment order, the Junior Engineer and the Executive
Engineer were imposed punishment of only 10% deduction of
pension for one year, but the petitioner (Assistant Engineer) was
imposed punishment of deduction of 20% of pension for three
years. This Court only on these points i.e., exorbitant
punishment has been made and parity has not been maintained,
hereby interfered and set aside the punishment part only and
directs that such imposition of punishment is exorbitant and not
maintaining the parity. Therefore, with a view to maintain parity,
Patna High Court CWJC No.361 of 2025 dt.23-03-2026
11/11
let the punishment of 20% deduction of pension for 3 years is
hereby reduced to deduction of 10% pension for one year only
and hence, the present writ petition is hereby disposed of.
19. On the point of applicability of Section 43B of
the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, it transpires to this Court that
decision for initiation of proceeding under Section 43B of the
Bihar Pension Rule, 1950, has not been challenged therefore,
this point is not available to the petitioner.
20. With the aforesaid observations, the present
writ petition stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…