Patna High Court
Dr. Aquil AhmadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
Holding
The court held that the legality of the disciplinary authority's order cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceeding.
Summary
Dr. Aquil Ahmad, a medical officer, filed a petition challenging the forfeiture of his 100% pension by a disciplinary authority under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner contended that the order, issued via Memo No. 1239(2) dated 21.07.2025, was illegal and sought relief in a contempt proceeding. The court observed that the gratuity amount had already been paid and there was no dispute on that point. However, the court held that the legality of the disciplinary authority's order could not be examined within the contempt proceeding. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to pursue the appropriate remedy under the law, and the application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can the court examine the legality of a disciplinary authority's order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules in a contempt proceeding?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the forfeiture of his pension.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Pension Rules — s. Rule 43(b)
Subjects
- pension forfeiture
- disciplinary authority
- contempt proceeding
- Bihar Pension Rules
- public service employee
- legal remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.907 of 2021
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11974 of 2019
======================================================
Dr. Aquil Ahmad, S/o-Md. Taiyab, R/v-Choty Baliya, P.O.-Lakhaminiya, P.S.-
Baliya, District-Begusarai Posted as a Incharge Medical Officer, Primary
Health Center, Piprahi, Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Sri Deepak Kumar. the Chief Secretary,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Sri Sanjay Kumar, the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. Dr. Ashok Kumar, the Director in Chief, Health Services, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Dr. Dhanesh Kumar Singh the Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer,
Sheohar, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. S. D. Yadav (AAG 9)
Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, AC to AAG-9
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
6 18-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.D.
Yadav, learned AAG-9 for the State.
2. It appears from the submissions of learned counsel
for the petitioner that so far as the gratuity amount of the
petitioner is concerned, the same has been fully paid and to that
extent, there is no dispute that the order of this Court has been
complied with.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the proceeding
Patna High Court MJC No.907 of 2021(6) dt.18-04-2026
2/2
under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. From Annexure
‘F’ to the show cause filed on behalf of the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, it
appears that vide Memo No. 1239(2) dated 21.07.2025, 100%
pension of the petitioner has been forfeited.
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
legality of the said order contained in Memo No. 1239(2) dated
21.07.2025 cannot be gone into in the contempt proceeding.
5. The petitioner is at liberty to avail his remedy, as
may be advised to him in accordance with law.
6. This application is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U
Checking your session…