The State Government's power to withhold pension and gratuity under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, and the entitlement of the pensioner to provisional pension, provisional gratuity, and other pensionary dues.

1. The petitioner superannuated from the service of the State Government long back on 31.7.1997, yet he has been kept deprived of the entire pensionary benefits till date. It appears that only three days before his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, vide order dated 28.7.1997, and later the same was continued, vide order dated 26.8.1997, after revoking the order of his suspension. On account of pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioner has been kept deprived of his pensionary benefits.

2. This Court, on consideration of the relevant rules and various decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sachchidanand Singh V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1993 (3) PLJR 513 : 2000(1) BLJ 125, held that where a Government servant is allowed to retire without the exercise of the power of retaining him in service under rules 73 to 75 of the Bihar Service Code, the power to continue the proceeding already initiated while in service can be exercised only in terms of proviso to rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and not otherwise, which obviously means after conforming the conditions mentioned therein. This was based on the principle decided by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Mohd. Idris Ansari, reported in 1995 (2) PLJR (S.C.) 51 : 1995 supp (3) SCC 56, wherein the Apex Court was considering the scope of rules 43 and 139 of the Rules and also on the principle decided in various decisions of the Apex Court ; like the one in the case of Kirti Bhusan Singh V/s. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1986 S.C. 2116 : 1986 PLJR (SC) 43 and the recent one in the case of Bhagirathi Jena V/s. Board of Directors, C.S.F.C., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 : AIR 1999 S.C. 1841, in which it has been held that once the appellant had retired from service, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. It was also held that in the absence of such authority, the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.

3. Rule 43 of the Rules certainly vests power in the State Government for withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it and also for ordering for recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement and under its proviso, for passing such an order, the Government has been vested with the power to initiate departmental proceeding even if not instituted prior to the retirement of a Government sen/ant or during his re-employment with certain riders provided therein, one of which is that such proceeding shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government and the other that it shall not be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.

4. This Court in the case of Kartik Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 389 of 1999 (R), disposed of on 23rd December, 1999) held that there cannot be any question of automatic continuance of the proceeding in the absence of specific provision like the one contained in rule 9(2) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, while dealing with an employee of the State Government after cessation of the relationship of master and servant on his retirement.

5. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra), the State Government had awarded punishment to the respondent as per the order dated 6.6.1992. The validity of the said order was challenged before this Court and the same was quashed as the principles of natural justice were