Patna High Court
Suresh Pandey,versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) was vitiated due to non‑compliance with the Bihar CCA Rules and denial of natural‑justice rights, rendering the pension‑deduction orders void.
Summary
The petitioner, a retired headmaster, challenged the deduction of 5% of his pension for three years imposed by the Education Department of Bihar, alleging that the departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated without a prior show‑cause notice and violated procedural safeguards under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The department had issued a memo of charge after a legislative query about non‑distribution of scheme funds, conducted an enquiry without listing witnesses, and rejected the petitioner’s reply without giving reasons. The petitioner argued that no pecuniary loss or grave misconduct was proved and that natural‑justice principles were ignored. The court examined the departmental records, found that the enquiry was conducted in contravention of Rules 17(3) and 17(14) of the Bihar CCA Rules, and that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross‑examine witnesses or adduce his own evidence. Relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the need for a fair enquiry, the court held the proceedings vitiated and set aside both the 10% and 5% pension deduction orders, directing full payment of the petitioner’s pension. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the departmental proceeding against a retired employee under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules was valid without a prior show‑cause notice.
- Whether the enquiry complied with the procedural requirements of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, particularly regarding witness lists and the right to cross‑examine.
- Whether the deduction of pension under the alleged misconduct was justified in the absence of proof of pecuniary loss or grave misconduct.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- pension deduction
- departmental enquiry
- Rule 43(B)
- natural justice
- procedural fairness
- service law
- writ petition
- superannuation
- Bihar Education Department
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9400 of 2022
======================================================
Suresh Pandey, Son of Late Yadu Pandey, Resident of Sarvodaya Nagar, Ward
No. 40, Begusarai, P.O., P.S. and District-Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Buddha Marg,
Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger.
5. The District Education Officer, Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amit Bhushan, AC to GP-17
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 887,
Patna dated 29.04.2022 imposing the punishment of the deduction
of 5% of his pension for 3 years affirming the order passed by the
Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar under Memo
No.180, Patna dated 02.02.2022 imposing punishment of
deduction of 10% from pension for 3 years alleged to be exercise
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
2/22
of power under 43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules without proper
appreciation of his reply furnished in response to second show-
cause in addition to applicability of 43(B) of Bihar Pension Rules
in light of law reflected from the said Rules as well as the law
settled by temple of justice time without numbers by terminating
the judicial proceeding and for other necessary relief/reliefs on the
basis of the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated stated
and discussed hereinafter.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. The brief facts, which are required to be considered
for proper adjudication of the present writ petition are that the
petitioner while working as In-Charge Headmaster, High School,
Ramdiri, Begusarai superannuated from services on 30.09.2018,
after attaining the age of superannuation.Vide letter No. 186 dated
23.03.2018, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, which was written in
reference to his letter No. 179 dated 21.03.2018 and letter No. 199
dated 23.03.2018 indicating therein that in the financial year 2016-
17, as per the demands made by the Headmaster of the School in
question, the funds were allotted and the same were withdrawn
and sent to the account of the beneficiaries through RTGS. It was
further mentioned that additional demands were not made by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
3/22
concerned Headmaster. Subsequently vide Memo No. 11 dated
02.01.2019, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, addressed to the District
Education Officer, Begusarai, it was directed that in view of letter
No. 186 dated 23.03.2018, whereby the reply to the question asked
for by the Member of Legislative Assembly, namely, Narendra
Kumar Singh @ Bogo Singh with regard to not granting the
benefit to the students for the year 2016-17 in relation to
Mukhyamantri Shatabdi Balika Poshak Yojana in the Government
High School, Ramdiri, Begusarai, charges with regard to
dereliction of duty is found to be prima facie proved against the
Principal of the concerned school, therefore, appropriate charge be
framed in terms of Bihar Government Servant (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the same be issued in
Prapatra-K within one week. In compliance of the above
mentioned direction, vide letter No. 2354 dated 29.09.2020, issued
under the signature of the District Education Officer, Begusarai,
addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna, the memo of charge along with evidence was sent for
his approval and for doing the necessary. The memo of charge
contained the detail of charges levelled against the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
4/22
along with the memo of charge, some documents were referred,
however list of witnesses were not given.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that no show cause
notice was issued to the petitioner before initiation of the
departmental proceeding. Vide letter No. 2046 dated 08.10.2021,
issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Secondary
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, the petitioner was directed
to submit his reply to the second show cause notice within one
week. Along with the letter dated 08.10.2021, copy of the enquiry
report was also provided to the petitioner. In compliance of the
letter dated 08.10.2021, the petitioner submitted his reply on
23.11.2021, wherein he denied all the charges levelled against him
and requested the disciplinary authority to exonerate him from the
charges levelled against him.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that from the entire
documents i.e. the memo of charge, the enquiry report etc, it would
not transpire that the proceeding against the petitioner was
initiated under Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The
disciplinary authority i.e. the Director, Secondary Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna by the impugned order contained in
memo No. 180 dated 02.02.2022, while referring to the enquiry
report and the reply submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
5/22
reject the reply submitted by the petitioner and imposed the
penalty of deduction of 10% of the pension for three years. Being
aggrieved with the order of punishment dated 02.02.2022, the
petitioner was constrained to file an appeal before the Additional
Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna, wherein he gave all the details with regard to the charge
levelled against him and requested the appellate authority to
exonerate him from the charges levelled against him. The appellate
authority i.e. the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna vide his order contained in
memo No. 887 dated 29.04.2022 modified the order of punishment
passed vide letter dated 02.02.2022, to the effect that instead of
10%, he directed for deduction of 5% pension of the petitioner for
three years. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the order dated
29.04.2022 passed by the appellate authority, has preferred the
present writ petition.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
during the entire service period, no allegation was levelled against
the petitioner and even, no show cause or explanation was asked
for from the petitioner with regard to negligence in performing his
duties. He submits that all of a sudden, the petitioner was handed
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
6/22
over the memo of charge, wherein certain charges were levelled
against him, however no show cause notice was ever issued to the
petitioner, prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding
against him. He submits that from the memo of charge, it would
not transpire that the proceeding against the petitioner has been
initiated under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
terms of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the punishment
can be awarded in case the State Government comes to the
conclusion that the employee concerned was found to be guilty of
grave misconduct in a departmental proceeding or comes to the
conclusion that the employee concerned has caused pecuniary loss
to the Government by misconduct/negligence, caused during his
service period. In case of the petitioner, there is no allegation of
causing any pecuniary loss to the State Exchequer and since, there
is no allegation of causing pecuniary loss to the Government by
misconduct or negligence during the service period, there was no
occasion to initiate departmental proceeding under Rule 43(B) of
the Bihar Pension Rules.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner finally submits
that since the petitioner was never granted any opportunity to file
reply to the show cause, since no show cause notice was ever
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
7/22
issued to the petitioner, before initiation of the departmental
proceeding, the entire departmental proceeding is a farce.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State submits that a question was raised on the floor of the
Bihar Legislative Assembly with regard to non-distribution of
money related to the Chief Minister Cycle and Dress Programme
for the financial year 2016-17 for High School, Ramdiri,
Begusarai. On receipt of the said complaint/question, a report was
called for and was received from the office of the District
Education Officer, Begusarai vide letter No. 186 dated 23.03.2018,
in which it was stated that since no requisition was made by the
Headmaster of the concerned school for release of extra amount,
the same was not released and distributed amongst the students.
On the basis of the said report, a departmental proceeding was
initiated against the petitioner by issuance of memo of charge. The
Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger
was appointed as the enquiry officer and he submitted his report,
after conducting a detailed enquiry vide his letter No. 167 dated
04.08.2021. The enquiry officer on the basis of the documents
brought on record by the presenting officer, came to the conclusion
that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner have been
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
8/22
found to be proved. Second show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner vide letter No. 1656 dated 19.08.2021, which was
replied by the petitioner on 23.11.2021. The disciplinary authority
after duly examining the reply submitted by the petitioner, by the
impugned order dated 02.02.2022, proceeded to award the penalty
of deduction of 10% of the pension of the petitioner for three
years, in terms of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rule. The
petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Chief Secretary
and the Additional Chief Secretary vide his order contained in
Memo No. 887 dated 29.04.2022, proceeded to modify the
punishment awarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority
on 02.02.2022, by directing for deduction of 5% of the pension of
the petitioner for three years.
10. He submits that in terms of the order dated
15.04.2026 passed in this case, a supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, wherein it has
been stated that the petitioner never asked for any additional
allocation for disbursement among the deprived girls under the
scheme for the financial year 2016-17 and a question was raised in
the Bihar Legislative Assembly. An enquiry was conducted,
wherein the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found
to be proved and based on the same, memo of charge was issued to
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
9/22
the petitioner. The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner
under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules and opportunity was
granted to the petitioner to file his second show cause reply, to the
enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, whereby the
charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be proved and
since, there is a specific finding against the petitioner that there
was deliberate delay in disbursement of the money to the
beneficiaries, under the scheme and due to that, total 40
beneficiaries were deprived of the benefits, therefore, he was
awarded the punishment.
11. The learned counsel for the State submits that
proviso (III) to Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules stipulates
that ‘shall be directed by such authority and at such place or places
as State Government may direct and in accordance with the
procedure applicable to proceeding on which, an order of dismissal
from service may be made’. He submits that the departmental
proceeding was conducted in terms of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar
Pension Rules and Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and
there is no procedural laches on behalf of the department in
conducting the entire departmental proceeding. He further submits
that the conduct of the petitioner comes under the ambit of
misconduct, therefore, the order of punishment for forfeiture of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
10/22
10% of pension of the petitioner for three years was passed,
however the same was subsequently modified to 5% forfeiture of
pension for three years.
CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PETITIONER
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to and
relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Punjab National Bank & Ors.
versus Kunj Behari Misra), wherein in paragraph nos. 18 & 19, it
has been held as follows:-
“18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry
proceedings can be conducted either by an
enquiry officer or by the disciplinary
authority itself. When the enquiry is
conducted by the enquiry officer, his report
is not final or conclusive and the
disciplinary proceedings do not stand
concluded. The disciplinary proceedings
stand concluded with the decision of the
disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary
authority which can impose the penalty and
not the enquiry officer. Where the
disciplinary authority itself holds an
enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be
granted by him. When the disciplinary
authority differs with the view of the enquiry
officer and proposes to come to a different
conclusion, there is no reason as to why an
opportunity of hearing should not be
granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
11/22
that where the charged officers succeed
before the enquiry officer, they are deprived
of representing to the disciplinary authority
before that authority differs with the enquiry
officer's report and, while recording a
finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the
officer. In our opinion, in any such situation,
the charged officer must have an opportunity
to represent before the disciplinary authority
before final findings on the charges are
recorded and punishment imposed. This is
required to be done as a part of the first
stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar
case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] .
19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be
that the principles of natural justice have to
be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result
thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority
disagrees with the enquiry authority on any
article of charge, then before it records its
own findings on such charge, it must record
its tentative reasons for such disagreement
and give to the delinquent officer an
opportunity to represent before it records its
findings. The report of the enquiry officer
containing its findings will have to be
conveyed and the delinquent officer will
have an opportunity to persuade the
disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer.
The principles of natural justice, as we have
already observed, require the authority
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
12/22
which has to take a final decision and can
impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to
the officer charged of misconduct to file a
representation before the disciplinary
authority records its findings on the charges
framed against the officer.”
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (Roop Singh Negi versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 14 &
23, it has been held as follows:-
“14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding
is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The
enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial
function. The charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be found to have
been proved. The enquiry officer has a
duty to arrive at a finding upon taking
into consideration the materials brought
on record by the parties. The purported
evidence collected during investigation by
the investigating officer against all the
accused by itself could not be treated to
be evidence in the disciplinary
proceeding. No witness was examined to
prove the said documents. The
management witnesses merely tendered
the documents and did not prove the
contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was
placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
13/22
which could not have been treated as
evidence.
23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary
authority as also the appellate authority
are not supported by any reason. As the
orders passed by them have severe civil
consequences, appropriate reasons
should have been assigned. If the enquiry
officer had relied upon the confession
made by the appellant, there was no
reason as to why the order of discharge
passed by the criminal court on the basis
of selfsame evidence should not have
been taken into consideration. The
materials brought on record pointing out
the guilt are required to be proved. A
decision must be arrived at on some
evidence, which is legally admissible. The
provisions of the Evidence Act may not be
applicable in a departmental proceeding
but the principles of natural justice are.
As the report of the enquiry officer was
based on merely ipse dixit as also
surmises and conjectures, the same could
not have been sustained. The inferences
drawn by the enquiry officer apparently
were not supported by any evidence.
Suspicion, as is well known, however high
may be, can under no circumstances be
held to be a substitute for legal proof.”
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
14/22
India reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 (State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors. versus Saroj Kumar Sinha), wherein in paragraph no. 28, it
has been held as follows:-
“28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-
judicial authority is in the position of an
independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority/Government. His function is to
examine the evidence presented by the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether
the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to
hold that the charges are proved. In the
present case the aforesaid procedure has
not been observed. Since no oral evidence
has been examined the documents have
not been proved, and could not have been
taken into consideration to conclude that
the charges have been proved against the
respondents.”
15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further refers
to and relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India reported in 2026 (3) PLJR 125 SC (Jai Prakash Saini
versus Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. &
Ors.), wherein in paragraph nos. 17 & 18, it has been held as
follows:-
“17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur
Enamel (supra) and Kharak Singh
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
15/22
(supra), followed in Chamoli District
Cooperative (supra), which deals with
similar service rules as are applicable
here, it is now settled that unless the
charged employee accepts his guilt in
clear terms, an enquiry on the charges
drawn against him would have to be held.
In the enquiry, the employer/department
would have to take steps first to lead
evidence against the workmen/delinquent
charged and give an opportunity to him to
cross examine those witnesses. Only
thereafter, the workmen/delinquent shall
be asked whether he wants to lead any
evidence and/or submit an explanation
about the evidence led against him. Even
in a case based solely on documentary
evidence, unless the relied upon
documents are admitted by the charged
employee, a witness would have to be
examined to prove those documents and
when so examined, the witness would
have to be tendered for cross-
examination.
18. In the instant case, we find that the
department had not produced any witness
in the enquiry even though the charges
levelled upon the appellant were denied
by him. Therefore, in our view, the
enquiry stood vitiated. Once the enquiry
stood vitiated, the consequential order of
punishment/recovery cannot be sustained.
We therefore allow this appeal. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
16/22
impugned judgment and order of the High
Court is set aside. The writ petition of the
appellant stands allowed to the extent
indicated below. The order of dismissal
and consequential recovery is set aside.
The Federation is, however, at liberty to
hold a de novo enquiry, if it so desires,
within a period of six months from the
date of this order. If the Federation does
not hold de novo enquiry as permitted
above, the appellant shall be entitled to
reinstatement with benefit of continuity in
service including arrears of salary after
adjusting suspension allowance, if any,
paid already. In case the Federation
chooses to hold an enquiry, it shall
reinstate the appellant and place him
under suspension till completion of the
enquiry and during this period pay
suspension allowance as may be payable
in accordance with law. In case de novo
enquiry is held, other service benefits
including arrears of salary as well as
benefits of continuity in service shall
depend on the outcome of the enquiry.”
ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION
16. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that admittedly the petitioner
superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation
on 30.09.2018 and till that time, no proceeding was pending
against the petitioner and the petitioner was not served with any
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
17/22
show cause notice or he was never asked to give explanation to
any complaint. Later on, after his retirement, the proceeding under
Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rule is said to have been initiated
against him for which, memo of charge was served to him. Prior to
issuance of said memo of charge, no show cause notice was
admittedly issued to the petitioner. The enquiry officer is said to
have considered the explanation, which was submitted by the
petitioner and after considering the explanation submitted by the
petitioner and relying upon the documents, which were produced
by the presenting officer as well as the on the statement made by
him, proceeded to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner.
After submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was issued
second show cause notice, which he duly replied, however the
disciplinary authority without even giving reason to reject the
reply submitted by the petitioner, went on to record that the reply
submitted by the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory,
proceeded to award punishment against him. Even the appeal
preferred by the petitioner was rejected, however the order passed
by the disciplinary authority dated 02.02.2022 was modified to the
extent that the appellate authority directed for forfeiture of 5% of
pension of the petitioner for three years. It appears that while
conducting the proceeding in terms of Rule 43(B) of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
18/22
Pension Rules and Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, the
procedure prescribed under the same was not followed by the
disciplinary authority in as much as in terms of Rule 17(3), no list
of witnesses were provided to the petitioner along with the memo
of charge. When no details of witnesses were given, along with the
memo of charge, there is no question of producing any witness
during the course of enquiry, before the enquiry officer and even
the documents, which are said to have been relied upon by the
enquiry officer, were never proved by their respective authors. The
petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses and to give/adduce witnesses in his favour, which also
appears to be in violation of Rules 17(14) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
2005. It further appears that the disciplinary authority, while
proceeding with the impugned order of punishment, did not utter a
word with regard to consideration of the reply filed by the
petitioner in his defence and in a mechanical manner, proceeded to
reject the same by holding that the same is found to be not
satisfactory. The enquiry officer only on the basis of the statement
made by the presenting officer, in absence of any witness,
proceeded to prove the charges against the petitioner on his own. It
is the mandate of law, which has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Saini (supra)
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
19/22
that unless the charged employee accept his guilt in clear terms, an
enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have to be held
and in the enquiry, the employer/department would have to take
steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent
charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine those
witness. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent shall be asked
whether he wants to lead any evidence and/or submit an
explanation about the evidence lead against him. Even in a case
based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon
documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would
have to be examined to prove these documents and when so
examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-
examine. In the present case, no such procedure has been adopted
and only on the basis of the documents presented by the presenting
officer, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty and found
the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
17. Considering the above, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the entire departmental proceeding
conducted against the petitioner was in clear violation of the
provisions contained in Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the impugned
order of punishment contained in Memo No. 180 dated 02.02.2022
and Memo No. 887 dated 29.04.2022, issued under the signature
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
20/22
of the Director (Secondary Education), Government of Bihar,
Patna and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna respectively deserves to be
set aside and are accordingly set aside.
18. Since, the petitioner has retired prior to issuance of
the departmental proceeding and the departmental proceeding was
not conducted in terms of the provisions contained in Bihar CCA
Rules, 2005. The High Court under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is entitled to interfere when the finding of
fact is based on no evidence and if in every case where no valid
evidence is laid at the enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made,
it would be offering a premium to the negligence of the
management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity with
which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the
disciplinary authority, who appoints the Enquiry Officer and the
Presenting Officer and it is expected that the Presenting Officer
would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed in the
manner in which evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry
Officer, to prove the misconduct, alleged against a delinquent
employee. In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the trite
principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of probability
as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt, as would be
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
21/22
required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there is no
evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of any
preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations
proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the basis of
peremptory finding without any valid evidence. The disciplinary
authority had an opportunity in a properly constituted enquiry
proceeding and if in such a proceeding no evidence was laid, the
punishment of dismissal has to be found to be imposed on no valid
evidence.
19. Accordingly, the petitioner is found entitled for
payment of his entire pension, for which he was entitled, prior to
passing of the impugned orders dated 02.02.2022 and 29.04.2022
respectively.
20. The respondent authorities are directed to recalculate
the entitlement of the petitioner, for which he was entitled to
before passing of the order dated 02.02.2022 and to calculate the
entire amount and make payment of the same to the petitioner
within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production
of the copy of the order.
21. The writ petition is allowed in the aforementioned
terms.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9400 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
22/22
22. Pending application, if any, shall also stands
disposed of.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.