Patna High Court
BiharversusRamyati Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The permanent 5% pension deduction was excessive and was modified to a ten‑year deduction, with the impugned orders set aside.
Summary
The State of Bihar appealed against a single judge’s order that upheld a permanent 5% pension deduction imposed on retired Executive Engineer Ramyati Singh for alleged procedural irregularities in a 1998‑99 road repair tender. Singh was charged with executing the agreement without proper administrative approval, failing to publish the tender in a newspaper, and not having the bill checked, but the departmental inquiry found the charges unestablished and exonerated him. The disciplinary authority nonetheless imposed a 5% pension deduction under Bihar Pension Rules. The High Court, relying on constitutional principles (Art.21, Art.14) and Supreme Court precedents, held that mere procedural lapses do not amount to misconduct warranting such a severe penalty and that the penalty was not "shocking to the conscience". Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and modified the deduction to a ten‑year period instead of a permanent one, thereby disposing of the appeal.
Issues considered
- The legality of a permanent 5% pension deduction under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.
- Whether procedural lapses in tender publication constitute misconduct justifying disciplinary penalty.
- Whether the imposed penalty is "shocking to the conscience" and thus liable to be set aside.
- Whether the court may modify the period of pension deduction rather than restore full pension.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of full pension.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 — s. Rule 17, Rule 43(b)
- Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 — s. Rule 43(b)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 14, Article 21, Section 226
Subjects
- pension deduction
- departmental misconduct
- procedural lapse
- disciplinary penalty
- constitutional law
- Article 21
- Article 14
- review of penalty
- retirement benefits
- Bihar PWD Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.199 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11409 of 2013
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ramyati Singh S/o Shri Brahmdeo Singh, R/o Mohalla-Rajbanshinagar, Road
No. 2 Extension, Police Station-Shastrinagar, District-Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P. K. Shahi, AG
Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7
Mr. Abhishek Singh, AC to GA-7
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suresh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Arbind Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akash Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 17-02-2026
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State
challenging the order dated 29-7-2024 of the learned Single
Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11409 of 2013. The writ-petitioner
filed the writ petition with the following prayers:-
“(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ to
quash the order issued under the signature of the
Special Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Bihar, Patna whereby and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
2/15
whereunder he has rejected the review
application preferred by the petitioner vide memo
no.8069 dated 20.07.2012.
(ii) For issuance of an appropriate
direction to quash notification bearing memo
no.14768(S) dated 21.10.2010 whereby and
whereunder the Additional Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna while
concluding the departmental proceeding under
Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules deducted five
percent amount of pension permanently from the
petitioner and consequently order issued under
the signature of the Deputy Secretary whereby
and whereunder in the light of the aforesaid
departmental notification five percent amount of
pension be deducted from the date of starting
pension from the petitioner vide memo
no.15821(s) dated 24.11.2010.
(iii) For issuance of an appropriate
direction to restore full pension to the petitioner.
(iv) For passing such other order or orders
for which the petitioner is entitled under the law
and in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. It is the case of the writ-petitioner that he was
superannuated from the post of Executive Engineer, Road
Construction Department, Road Division, on 31.12.2007. While
he was posted as the Executive Engineer, R.E.O., Works
Division, Patna, a tender was invited for repair works of
Lodipur–Sadispur road in 2nd Kms. from 700 ft. to 1400 ft. for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
3/15
the period 1998-1999. For execution of the repair work an agreement
was executed with the contractor and the estimated amount of the
work as per the agreement was fixed to the tune of Rs.1,05,363/-. The
date of completion of work was prescribed as 31.03.1999.
Subsequently, the Special Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, issued resolution that a
departmental proceeding against the petitioner will be initiated under
Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2005 Rules”)
for alleged irregularities committed during his posting under the
R.E.O. Works Division, Patna, vide Memo dated 12.04.2007. The
memo of charge was served upon the petitioner and there were three
charges formulated, which read as follows:-
“(i) the agreement for the aforesaid repair work
was executed without administrative
approval/allotment of fund from the c ompetent
authority rather approval from Works the
Superintending Engineer, Circle, Patna was
obtained and agreement was executed for the said
work on 19.03.1999 of Rs.1,05,363/-
(ii) tender notice was not published in the.
Newspaper, and
(iii) the work was measured by the Junior
Engineer on 31.03.1999 and the bill was prepared
for Rs. 74,393/- which was not checked by the
answering respondent (Annexure-2 to the writ
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
4/15
petition).”
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that for the
self-same irregularities, a departmental proceeding was also
initiated against the Superintending Engineer and Assistant
Engineer of R.E.O. Works Division, Patna, along with the
petitioner and they have been exonerated of the charges levelled
against them. The petitioner also submitted his reply before the
Enquiry Officer and it was contended that there was no need for
any administrative approval for small and petty repair works and
Rs. 5 lakhs fund was allotted for the work vide departmental
letter dated 06.08.1998. So far as the second charge is
concerned, it is stated that after making signature of the
Executive Engineer on the letter relating to the Notice Inviting
Tender, the same was sent to Division’s Correspondence Section
and duly mentioned it on the issue Register. Further the tender in
question has been placed before the petitioner for his
recommendation after the same was forwarded by the
Estimating and Accounts Officer; thereafter, the same was
forwarded to the Superintending Engineer for final disposal.
4. So far as the wide circulation of the tender is
concerned, it was stated that the work of Rs. 5 lakh was
distributed among the three contractors in healthy competition.
As far as the 3rd charge is concerned, the bill of Rs. 74,393/- was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
5/15
prepared and it was entered into the Measurement Book, which
was never placed before the petitioner’s entire tenure upto
31.05.2000 for ‘Check and Pass’ order.
5. The Departmental Inquiring Officer, after
considering the reply of the petitioner, held that all the three
charges were not established and recommended for exonerating
him from the charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority
issued second show cause notice while differing from the
reasons of the Inquiring Officer in respect of charge no.2 only,
regarding non-performance of the wide circulation of the tender
through newspaper, and the petitioner was asked to submit his
reply within fifteen days on the said charge.
6. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted his
reply within time and stated that the tender notice was kept by
the Estimating Section of the Division where the Employee/
Estimator/Estimating Officer were posted, and if the tender was
not published in the newspaper before one week from the date
fixed for the tender then the tender would be postponed. In the
instant case, neither the date of tender has been extended nor the
tender has been postponed.
7. Further stand has been taken that the final decision
was taken by the Superintending Engineer after verification of
the press publication in the newspaper and that press publication
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
6/15
is not available in the office of the R.E.O. Works Division,
Patna. It is further contended that the contractor filed a writ
petition for payment of the outstanding dues and accordingly
this Court directed for the payment of dues in favour of the
contractor. Aggrieved, the State preferred LPA No. 638 of 2007,
which came to be disposed of directing the payment to be made
to the contractor and accordingly the payment was made.
8. The case of the petitioner is that the decision of the
respondent no.3 regarding deduction of 5% amount of pension
permanently from the petitioner while concluding the
departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension
Rules was not justified. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of
the Additional Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna, preferred a review before the Hon’ble Minister, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, but the same was rejected vide
order dated 02.07.2017 by the Special Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. The impugned order
deducting 5% pension is said to be not sustainable in the eyes of
law and contrary to the provision of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950
as no pecuniary loss was caused to the State Government.
9. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction
Department, Government of Bihar, filed the counter affidavit,
wherein it was stated that there was every justification for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
7/15
passing such order.
10. The petitioner filed his reply to the counter
affidavit filed by the respondent no.4.
11. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties,
held as follows:
“6. Having heard the rival submissions
made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the fact
that the allegation which has been levelled against
the petitioner is in respect of procedural difficulty
in making payment to the contractor after
completion of the work. The Division Bench in
L.P.A. No. 638 of 2007 after recording that the
work was completed which is supported by bill
raised by the contractor, had not found any fault in
the order passed by learned Single Judge, who had
directed the respondents to make payment of a
sum of Rs.74,393/- out of the total work for
Rs.1,05,363/-. The authorities having admitted
that the work has been completed as per the
contract entered into by the petitioner on behalf of
the State Government, who was posted at the
relevant time as the Executive Engineer cannot be
faulted for having acted against the law. A
reference of PWD code would make it more clear
that in respect of any work completion, the same
is entered into the measurement book and
payments have to be made on the said basis. Mere
procedural lapses on part of the petitioner cannot
constitute misconduct. The authorities have not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
8/15
taken any action in respect of the two other
delinquent employees who have been exonerated
about which the petitioner has made a specific
statement in paragraph no.9 of the writ petition,
which has not been denied by the respondents. I
don't find any reason that any loss was caused to
the State.
7. The law in respect of interference by this
Court is well settled by the Apex Court in the case
of B. C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India & Ors.
reported in (1995) 6 SCC 746 stating therein that
in the case of penalty order, Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is attracted and in view of
the interdependence of the fundamental right, the
punishment/penalty awarded to be reasonable and
if it be unreasonable, Article 14 of the
Constitution would be violated, however, for the
self-imposed limitation while exercising power
under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, I
find it proper to direct the Disciplinary
Authority/Appellate Authority to re- consider the
penalty imposed and pass appropriate punishment
order with cogent reason.
8. I am of the opinion in light of the
aforesaid reason, the impugned order dated
21.10.2010, passed by the Additional Secretary,
Road Construction Department, Patna; order dated
24.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Road
Construction Department, Bihar and revisional
order dated 20.07.2012 passed by Special
Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
9/15
Patna, as contained in Annexures 8, 9 and 11
respectively are hereby set aside and quashed for
the aforesaid reason.”
12. The learned Advocate General, challenging the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended
that the writ-petitioner has deliberately violated the prescribed
procedure for publication of tender and allotment of work in the
newspaper and thereby a grave misconduct was caused by the
writ-petitioner. It was further argued that the quantification of
loss caused to the State is not a criteria for constituting a
misconduct which has not been appreciated by the learned
Single Judge. The observation of the learned Single Judge that it
was a mere procedural lapse on the part of the petitioner and it
cannot constitute misconduct, is not at all justified.
It is further argued that the two delinquents who were
the Superintending Engineer and Assistant Engineer have been
let off without punishment in the disciplinary proceeding,
cannot be a ground to take a liberal view on the petitioner, who
was the Executive Engineer and has got a vital role in the
publication of tender and therefore the impugned order is liable
to be set aside.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the
other hand, submitted that there is no dispute that the work in
question has already been done and the payment has been made
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
10/15
as per the direction of this Court and the petitioner has retired
since long and he is now aged about 80 years. Further the State
has not come up with any case that there is any other kind of
misconduct on the part of the respondent during his entire
service career, and therefore a liberal view should be taken in
the matter.
14. Rule 158 of Bihar P.W.D. Code, which deals with
tenders, states that tender must be obtained for all works which
are proposed to be given on contract unless the amount is Rs.
20,000 or less. So far as the manner of floating of tender is
concerned, it is elaborately dealt in Rule 159, which is quoted
hereinbelow:-
“[159. Tenders, which should-always be sealed,
shall invariably be invited in the most open and
public manner possible by advertisement on the
Internet through official web-sites in the
newspapers having wide circulation in the area
and by notice in English or in Hindi posted in
public places. For any work of more than Rs.
1,00,000/- publication of tender notice in
newspapers and/or internet is mandatory. To save
costs in advertisement there could be a short
notice having important information in
newspapers which should have information about
as to where detailed Information can be obtained,
which could be in the office and/or available on
the official web-sites on the internet. The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
11/15
intending participants should in all cases have
prior knowledge about:-
(i) detailed criteria for shortlisting the
participants.
(ii) The form in which the tender should be
presented
(iii) When and where the sanctioned
estimate, specifications, drawings or plans,
conditions and clauses of contract and other
contract documents can be seen, and the blank
form of tender obtained.
Whether any material will be supplied
departmentally and if so the rate at which and the
place where if should be supplied,
(iv) The place where, the date on which and
the time when tenders are to be submitted and are
to be opened. Normally it should not be less than
10 days in case of emergency, the time period can
be reduced as per requirement with the prior
approval of the concerned Superintending
Engineer.
(v) The amount of earnest money to
accompany the tender and the amount and nature
of the security deposit required in the case of
accepted tender.
The tender notice should also stipulate that
contractors submitting tenders should furnish
Income-tax, and Sales-tax clearance certificates
along with it.
(vi) The designation of the authority that
will accept the tender. Authority should always be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
12/15
reserved to reject any or all of the tenders so
received without the assignment of a reason and
this should be expressly stated in the notice.
(vii) The time of completion of the work
according to the nature and urgency of the work.
In exceptional cases only, time extension can be
allowed by the Public Works Department itself
only.
All this information can be given in the
short notice and/or detailed information to be
supplied from the office and/or through official
websites on the internet.”
15. Even though the writ-petitioner has taken a stand
that the tender was floated, but no documentary proof has been
brought on record or substantiated to that effect. Therefore, it is
a case of no tender; although, the amount of the work justifies
the floating of the tender as per the said two provisions i.e. Rule
158 and Rule 159 of Bihar P.W.D. Code.
16. The learned Advocate General has placed reliance
in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another v.
Rajendra Singh, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as follows:-
“19. The principles discussed above can be
summed up and summarised as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
13/15
proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment
to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the
domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The courts cannot assume the function
of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to
decide the quantum of punishment and nature of
penalty to be awarded, as this function is
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority.
19.3. Limited judicial review is available to
interfere with the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority, only in cases where such
penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience
of the court.
19.4. Even in such a case when the
punishment is set aside as shockingly
disproportionate to the nature of charges framed
against the delinquent employee, the appropriate
course of action is to remit the matter back to the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty.
The court by itself cannot mandate as to what
should be the penalty in such a case.
19.5. The only exception to the principle
stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases
where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser
punishment by the disciplinary authority even
when the charges of misconduct were identical or
the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious
charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality
when it is found that the employee concerned and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
14/15
the co-delinquent are equally placed. However,
there has to be a complete parity between the two,
not only in respect of nature of charge but
subsequent conduct as well after the service of
charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent
accepts the charges, indicating remorse with
unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him
would be justifiable.
17. It is the contention of the learned Advocate
General that there is no finding of the learned learned Single
Judge that the punishment which was imposed on the writ
petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the
charges framed against him; therefore, the Court should not have
remitted the matter back to the authority to pass appropriate
order on the quantum of punishment.
18. Upon perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the work in question pertains to the year 1998. There is no
dispute that the said work was duly executed and recorded in the
Measurement Book, and payment was released in terms of the
order passed by this Court. It is true that, considering the
quantum involved, a tender ought to have been floated in
accordance with the specific statutory provision, which was
admittedly not complied with in the present case. However,
taking into account the fact that the writ-petitioner has already
retired from service; there are no other allegations against him in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.199 of 2025 dt.17-02-2026
15/15
his service career and he has been exonerated of other two
charges and now he is aged about 80 years and he has retired
from service for nearly 19 years, we are of the considered view
that, in the interest of justice, the direction for permanent
deduction of 5% from his pension requires modification.
Accordingly, the deduction of 5% from the pension shall be
restricted to a period of ten (10) years from the date of
retirement, instead of being imposed permanently.
19. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the instant
LPA stands disposed off.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
( Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19-02-2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…