Patna High Court

Ganesh Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 22 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

The Court held that no grave misconduct or pecuniary loss was established and the order under Rule 43(b) was unsustainable, thereby quashing the pension‑withholding orders.

Summary

Ganesh Prasad Yadav, a former Executive Engineer in the Bihar Public Health Engineering Department, was subjected to departmental charges that were initially found unproved. After his retirement, a second show‑cause notice was issued and the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the enquiry report, ordered a 5% pension withholding for five years under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Yadav challenged the order, contending that no grave misconduct or pecuniary loss was established and that the authority gave no reasons for rejecting his reply. The State argued that the disciplinary authority could overrule the enquiry findings and that the proceedings were lawful. The High Court held that the disciplinary authority failed to demonstrate grave misconduct or loss, did not provide reasons for its decision, and therefore could not invoke Rule 43(b); consequently, the orders were quashed and the petitioner’s pension dues were directed to be paid in full.

Issues considered

Whether the disciplinary authority can impose a pension withholding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules without a finding of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.
Whether the authority’s order, which lacked reasons and merely recorded a one‑line observation, is legally sustainable.
Whether the disciplinary authority may overrule the findings of the departmental enquiry under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

Legislation cited

Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 43(b)

Subjects

pension withholding
disciplinary proceedings
grave misconduct
Rule 43(b)
departmental enquiry
public health engineering department
Bihar
writ petition
administrative law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5541 of 2022
======================================================
Ganesh Prasad Yadav Son of Late Atul Prasad Mandal, Resident of New
Harnichak, Yamuna Yadav Path, (Phulwari), P.S.- Beur, Anishabad, District -
Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, the Department of General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Engineer in Chief/Health Engineering Department Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
5. The Commissioner Departmental Enquiry, General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Accountant General Office (A and E), Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2398 of 2022
======================================================
Ganesh Prasad Yadav S/o Late Atul Prasad Mandal Resident of New
Harnichak, Yamuna Yadav Path (Phulwari), P.S.- Beur, Anisabad, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Principal Secretary, the Department of General Administration, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Engineer in Chief/Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
6. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
7. The Commissioner, Departmental Enquiry, General Administration
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
2/15

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5541 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate
Mr. Anchit, Advocate
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, AC to AAG5
For Respondent No.6 : Ms. Ritika Rani, Advocate
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2398 of 2022)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate
Mr. Anchit, Advocate
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Arvind Ujjwal (SC 4)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant

General, Bihar in both the writ petitions.

Re. CWJC No. 5541 of 2022

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the

Resolution contained in Memo No. 303 dated 02.05.2017 issued

by the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of

Bihar (hereinafter referred to as “PHED”), whereby and

whereunder the petitioner, who was then posted as Executive

Engineer in PHED, has been awarded the punishment of

withholding 5% of his pension for a period of five years under

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the dispute giving rise to the present writ petition relates to

the period when the petitioner was posted as Executive
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
3/15

Engineer, PHED, Sasaram from June, 2010 to December, 2011.

It is submitted that the petitioner was served with an order

contained in Memo No. 489 dated 25.10.2013 along with a

memorandum of charge initiating a departmental proceeding

under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules,

2005”). Learned counsel submits that a total of nine charges

were levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner duly

participated in the departmental proceeding, which was

registered as Departmental Proceeding No. 57 of 2013. It is

further submitted that upon conclusion of the enquiry, the

petitioner was exonerated from all the charges, as none of the

nine charges was found to have been proved. Thereafter, a

second show cause notice was issued. Though the charge memo

was issued during the petitioner’s service period on 25.10.2013,

admittedly, he retired from service on 31.01.2014. The enquiry

proceedings were concluded after his retirement. It is further

submitted that the second show cause notice was issued on

16.07.2017, wherein the disciplinary authority disagreed with

the findings of the enquiry report. Since the petitioner had

already retired, the departmental proceeding was converted into

one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
4/15

fact has been duly acknowledged in the final order itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in

the final order, there is only a one-line observation to the effect

that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show

cause notice has been considered and all the allegations have

been found proved, without assigning any cogent reasons. It is

further submitted that Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,

1950 clearly stipulates that the appointing authority has the right

to withhold or withdraw pension or any part thereof, whether

permanently or for a specified period, or to order recovery from

pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the

Government, only if the pensioner is found in departmental or

judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or

to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct

or negligence during service.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in the present

case, neither of the aforesaid conditions has been satisfied. It is

submitted that at the fag end of his career, the Government

initiated three separate departmental proceedings against the

petitioner by issuing three different charge memos. One charge

memo was issued prior to his retirement, while two charge

memos were issued on the very date of his retirement. In this
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
5/15

regard, the petitioner had filed three separate writ petitions. The

writ petition arising out of the charge memo issued on the date

of his retirement was registered as CWJC No. 16576 of 2017

(Ganesh Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors.), which was

decided on 03.08.2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. The

remaining two writ petitions are the present writ petitions,

namely CWJC No. 5541 of 2022 and CWJC No. 2398 of 2022.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that since there is absolutely no finding of grave misconduct nor

any finding regarding pecuniary loss caused to the Government,

the order passed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules,

1950 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law and is,

therefore, fit to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground

that the charge memo was issued strictly in accordance with law.

He submits that although the enquiry officer did not find any

lacuna against the petitioner in the enquiry report, under the

CCA Rules, 2005, it is well within the power of the disciplinary

authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry report,

issue a second show cause notice, and thereafter pass an order

after granting due opportunity to the delinquent officer. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
6/15

further submitted that the disciplinary authority, having

disagreed with the findings of the enquiry report, issued a

second show cause notice and, after considering the reply

submitted by the petitioner, passed the final order. Since the

petitioner had retired by that time, the order was passed under

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Learned counsel

specifically submits that there is no procedural or legal infirmity

in the said proceeding and, therefore, the writ petitions are liable

to be dismissed.

8. Since the petitioner in both the aforementioned writ

petitions is the same person and the hearing in both the writ

petitions has been conducted jointly, this Court shall record its

conclusions in a common judgment at the appropriate stage.

9. With regard to CWJC No. 2398 of 2022, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge memo was

issued against the petitioner on 31.01.2014, i.e., the date of his

retirement, containing four allegations. Upon conclusion of the

enquiry, out of the four charges, two were found not proved and

one charge was found proved. Thereafter, the matter was

referred to the disciplinary authority. Since the petitioner had

already retired by then, the proceeding was converted into one

under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. A second
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
7/15

show cause notice was issued and, after receipt of the reply

thereto, the final order was passed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the

same contention that in the order passed by the disciplinary

authority, as contained in Memo No. 900 dated 21.08.2018,

there is only a cursory and one-line consideration of the reply

submitted by the petitioner to the second show cause notice,

stating merely that upon analysis, the reply was not found

acceptable. Learned counsel submits that such a mechanical

consideration is wholly unsustainable in law, inasmuch as not a

single point raised in the reply to the second show cause notice

has been discussed or dealt with by the disciplinary authority.

He further submits that there is neither any finding of grave

misconduct nor any allegation or finding of pecuniary loss

caused to the Government. According to learned counsel, the

sole allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to properly

supervise the work and that the funds for the work were released

to the local Mukhiya by the competent authorities.

11. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner

was neither the releasing authority nor the checking authority,

nor was he a member of any supervisory committee in respect

of the work executed by the Mukhiya. It is contended that in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
8/15

absence of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner or any

pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government, the provisions

of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 are not attracted

and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,

submits that the petitioner being a Government servant, his

service conditions are governed by the CCA Rules, 2005. It is

submitted that the charge memo was duly issued and a

departmental enquiry was conducted, in which out of the four

charges, one charge was found proved and one was found

partially proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, after

issuance of a second show cause notice and consideration of the

petitioner’s reply, passed the final order strictly in accordance

with law.

Re. CWJC No. 5541 of 2022 and CWJC No. 2398 of

2022

13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and

upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that two

aspects arise for consideration in the present matters. The first is

whether the orders passed by the disciplinary authority in both

the cases are sustainable in law, particularly in view of the

specific pleadings and contentions raised by the petitioner in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
9/15

both the writ petitions.

14. The specific contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner in both the cases is that the replies submitted by the

petitioner to the second show cause notices were not considered

at all and that the disciplinary authority merely recorded a one-

line observation stating that upon consideration of the replies to

the second show cause notices, the same were not found

acceptable. Such an observation cannot be countenanced by a

judicial forum, for the reason that every judicial or quasi-

judicial order must be supported by reasons. An order bereft of

reasons is no order in the eye of law. A 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.

15. In addition thereto, this Court is of the considered

view that for initiation and culmination of proceedings under

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, two essential

ingredients must be satisfied, namely: (i) the pensioner must be

found guilty of grave misconduct; or (ii) he must be found to

have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or

negligence. In this regard, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
10/15

the case of Ganesh Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,

decided on 03.08.2021, after considering a catena of decisions

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has held as under:

“20. What amounts to misconduct, has been lucidly
explained by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. J
Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286. Paragraph 11 of which
reads as under:-
11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct
Rules clearly indicates the conduct expected of a
member of the service. It would follow that
conduct which is blameworthy for the government
servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be
misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way
inconsistent with due and faithful discharge of his
duty in service, it is misconduct (see Pierce v.
Foster [17 QB 536, 542]). A disregard of an
essential condition of the contract of service may
constitute misconduct [see Laws v. London
Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers [(1959) 1 WLR
698])]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad
Onkarprasad Tiwari vDivisional Superintendent,
Central Railway, Nagpur Division, Nagpur [61 Bom
LR 1596] , and Satubha K. Vaghela v. Moosa Raza
[10 Guj LR 23] . The High Court has noted the
definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary which runs as under:

“Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill
motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or
innocent mistake, do not constitute such
misconduct.”

In industrial jurisprudence amongst others,
habitual or gross negligence constitute misconduct
but in Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Workmen, Miss
Shanti Patnaik [AIR 1966 SC 1051 : (1966) 2 SCR
434 : (1966) 1 LLJ 398 : 28 FJR 131] in the absence
of standing orders governing the employee's
undertaking, unsatisfactory work was treated as
misconduct in the context of discharge being
assailed as punitive. In S. Govinda Menon v. Union
of India [(1967) 2 SCR 566 : AIR 1967 SC 1274 :
(1967) 2 LLJ 249] the manner in which a member
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
11/15

of the service discharged his quasi judicial function
disclosing abuse of power was treated as
constituting misconduct for initiating disciplinary
proceedings. A single act of omission or error of
judgment would ordinarily not constitute
misconduct though if such error or omission
results in serious or atrocious consequences the
same may amount to misconduct as was held by
this Court in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France,Calcutta [AIR
1963 SC 1756 : (1964) 2 SCR 104 : (1963) 1 LLJ
679 : 24 FJR 464] wherein it was found that the
two mistakes committed by the employee while
checking the load-sheets and balance charts
would involve possible accident to the aircraft and
possible loss of human life and, therefore, the
negligence in work in the context of serious
consequences was treated as misconduct. It is,
however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency
or attainment of highest standards in discharge of
duty attached to public office would ipso facto
constitute misconduct. There may be negligence in
performance of duty and a lapse in performance
of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the
developing situation may be negligence in
discharge of duty but would not constitute
misconduct unless the consequences directly
attributable to negligence would be such as to be
irreparable or the resultant damage would be so
heavy that the degree of culpability would be very
high. An error can be indicative of negligence and
the degree of culpability may indicate the
grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can
often be productive of more harm than deliberate
wickedness or malevolence. Leaving aside the
classic example of the sentry who sleeps at his
post and allows the enemy to slip through, there
are other more familiar instances of which a
railway cabinman signals in a train on the same
track where there is a stationery traincausing
head-on collision; a nurse giving intravenous
injection which ought to be given intramuscular
causing instantaneous death; a pilot overlooking
an instrument showing snag in engine and the
aircraft crashes causing heavy loss of life.
Misplaced sympathy can be a great evil (see
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
12/15

Navinchandra Shakerchand Shah v. Manager,
Ahmedabad Coop. Department Stores Ltd. [(1978)
19 Guj LR 108, 120] ). But in any case, failure to
attain the highest standard of efficiency in
performance of duty permitting an inference of
negligence would not constitute misconduct nor
for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as
would indicate lack of devotion to duty.”

(Emphasis supplied).

21. In case of State of Punjab v. Ex-
Constable Ram Singh reported in (1992) 4 SCC 54, the
Supreme Court had again the occasion of dealing with the
term ‘misconduct’ and laid down in paragraphs 5 and 6 as
under:-
“5. Misconduct has been defined in Black's Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 999 thus:

“A transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from
duty, unlawful behavior, wilful in character,
improper or wrong behavior, its synonyms are
misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency,
impropriety mismanagement, offense, but not
negligence or carelessness.”

Misconduct in office has been defined as:

“Any unlawful behavior by a public officer in
relation to the duties of his office, wilful in
character. Term embraces acts which the office
holder had no right to perform, acts performed
improperly, and failure to act in the face of an
affirmative duty to act.”

P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon, Reprint Edition
1987 at page 821 defines ‘misconduct’ thus:

“The term misconduct implies a wrongful
intention, and not a mere error of judgment.
Misconduct is not necessarily the same thing as
conduct involving moral turpitude. The word
misconduct is a relative term, and has to be
construed with reference to the subject matter
and the context wherein the term occurs, having
regard to the scope of the Act or statute which is
being construed. Misconduct literally means
wrong conduct or improper conduct. In usual
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
13/15

parlance, misconduct means a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action,
where no discretion is left, except what necessity
may demand and carelessness, negligence and
unskilfulness are transgressions of some
established, but indefinite, rule of action, where
some discretion is necessarily left to the actor.
Misconduct is a violation of definite law;
carelessness or abuse of discretion under an
indefinite law. Misconduct is a forbidden act;
carelessness, a forbidden quality of an act, and is
necessarily indefinite. Misconduct in office may be
defined as unlawful behaviour or neglect by a
public officer, by which the rights of a party have
been affected.”

6. Thus it could be seen that the word
‘misconduct’ though not capable of precise
definition, on reflection receives its connotation
from the context, the delinquency in its
performance and its effect on the discipline and
the nature of the duty. It may involve moral
turpitude, it must be improper or wrong
behaviour; unlawful behaviour, wilful in character;
forbidden act, a transgression of established and
definite rule of action or code of conduct but not
mere error of judgment, carelessness or
negligence in performance of the duty; the act
complained of bears forbidden quality or
character. Its ambit has to be construed with
reference to the subject matter and the context
wherein the term occurs, regard being had to the
scope of the statute and the public purpose it
seeks to serve. The police service is a disciplined
service and it requires to maintain strict discipline.
Laxity in this behalf erodes discipline in the service
causing serious effect in the maintenance of law
and order.”

(Emphasis supplied).

22. Similar view has been taken by the
Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in case of
Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and
Others reported in (1999) 7 SCC 409, relying on the
Supreme Court’s decision in case of Ex Constable
Ram Singh (supra).
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
14/15

23. In a subsequent decision in case of
Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566, the Supreme
Court held that an error of judgment per se is not a
misconduct and a negligence simpliciter also would not
be a misconduct.
24. It is culled out on the basis of the
tentative notes of disagreement of the Disciplinary
Authority itself read with the finding recorded by the
Enquiring Authority that the calculation done by the
petitioner of the amount of price neutralization was not
found to be excessive because of the proper upkeep of
the register but because the monthly rates were not
obtained from Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd.
25. Further, Mr. Shahi has rightly placed
reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in case of
Rajendra Yadav (supra). The Disciplinary Authority has
not dealt at all with the finding recorded by the
Enquiring Authority in this regard in his report and has
thus admitted that no disciplinary action was initiated
against others, who had also submitted the proposals in
the same manner in which, the petitioner had done.
26. Situated thus, keeping in mind such
findings of the Enquiring Authority in respect of which
no disagreement had been recorded in the tentative
notes of disagreement, as has been discussed
hereinabove and the law on ‘misconduct’ as adjudged
by the Supreme Court in its various judicial
pronouncements noticed in this judgment, I am of the
considered view that no case of grave misconduct has
been made out against the petitioner, which is a
prerequisite for action under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules in the absence of any pecuniary loss
caused to the State; warranting punishment of
withholding of pension. Resultantly, the impugned
order requires interference. The impugned order dated
12.10.2017 issued vide letter no. 853 is hereby
quashed, accordingly.

16. In light of the discussions made and the reasons

assigned hereinabove for non-sustenance of the final orders

impugned in both the writ petitions, and this Court being in full

agreement with the ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in

Ganesh Prasad Yadav (supra), the impugned orders dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5541 of 2022 dt.22-01-2026
15/15

02.05.2017 contained in Memo No. 303, issued by the Special

Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Government

of Bihar and order dated 21.08.2018 contained in Memo No.

900, passed by the Engineer-in-Chief-cum- Special Secretary,

Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Bihar,

are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to

ensure payment of the entire admissible retiral dues of the

petitioner within a period of three months from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.

17. In the result, both the writ petitions stand allowed.

(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28/01/2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…