A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kumar Manish was hearing a writ petition filed by Umesh Kr. Verma challenging the departmental proceeding initiated against him, its subsequent conversion under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the inquiry proceedings and the order imposing a deduction of 75% from his pension.

The petitioner had been appointed as a Deputy Collector in the Bihar Administrative Service in 1979 and superannuated on 31.12.2014 while serving as Director, Sainik Kalyan Nideshalaya, Patna, in the rank of Additional Secretary. During his tenure as Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Araria, from 12.12.2006 to 20.10.2009, certain irregularities were alleged against him concerning execution and advance disbursements for installation of High Mast Lamps under the MPLADS and MLA Local Area Development Scheme.

The District Magistrate, Araria submitted allegations on 28.10.2014, which were thereafter forwarded to the General Administration Department. Although a departmental resolution was purportedly signed on 29.12.2014, two days before the petitioner's superannuation, the petitioner contended that it was never served upon him during his service.

The State argued that the proceeding had been initiated on 29.12.2014 while the petitioner was still in service and that an attempt had been made to serve the resolution through a special messenger on 31.12.2014.

The High Court examined the original records and found that there was no contemporaneous entry establishing service upon the petitioner before his retirement. Instead, the Speed Post record showed that the charge-memo was dispatched only on 09.01.2015 and was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2015, after his retirement on 31.12.2014.

The Court therefore held that the proceeding could not be treated as a continuation of a pre-retirement proceeding and constituted a post-retirement proceeding governed by Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The Court noted that the proviso to Rule 43(b) expressly bars institution of a departmental proceeding against a pensioner in respect of an event which took place more than four years before such institution.

Applying the principle laid down in Idris Ansari, the Court held that since the alleged irregularities related to the period 2006–2009 and the proceeding was instituted only on 10.01.2015, the statutory four-year period had been exceeded. The proceeding was therefore held to be “wholly misconceived, without jurisdiction, stillborn, and legally not maintainable.”

The Court also found additional defects in the disciplinary proceedings. It noted that the charges had been expanded from four to six through an administrative forwarding note dated 28.04.2015, without a formal Executive Resolution by the Disciplinary Authority as required under Rule 17(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. The supplementary charges were consequently held to be void ab initio.

The Court further held that the petitioner's absence during the ex-parte proceedings could not automatically be treated as an admission of guilt. In the absence of independent evidence showing personal misrepresentation or deliberate negligence, the findings against him could not be sustained.

The Court also found that the disciplinary authority had failed to properly consider the petitioner's written defence and documentary annexures as required under Rule 18(4) of the Bihar CCA Rules.

It observed that the requirement to “consider” the employee's representation requires application of mind to the specific defence raised and cannot be satisfied merely by acknowledging its receipt or passing a template order. The Court accordingly quashed the departmental proceedings and the final punishment order imposing a 75% deduction from the petitioner's pension.

Taking note of the prolonged delay and procedural lapses, the Court directed the concerned Department to conduct an internal administrative inquiry to identify the officials responsible, fix individual accountability and take appropriate action if deliberate laches were found.

The respondents were further directed to restore the petitioner's full pension and release all withheld pensionary benefits, including arrears, gratuity and other post-retiral dues, along with statutory interest at 6% per annum, within eight weeks.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate; Mr. Navendu Kumar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Raghwanand, G.A.-11 (now AAG-14); Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to G.A.-11; Mr. Babul Kumar, A.C. to AAG-14.