The central legal point established in the judgment is that a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, which is initiated after more than four years of the actual event, is wholly without jurisdiction.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure-6 issued vide memo no. 398 dated 23.1.2002 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished with curtailment of 10% of his pension.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner some times in the year 1994 as a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner alleging therein that he misappropriated government money by selling fertilizers. Petitioners thereafter was put under suspension vide order dated 24.11.1994 and thereafter the order of suspension was revoked on 17.3.98. During the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.1.98 and thereafter a separate departmental proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) was initiated against the petitioner on 30th January, 1999 and the old proceeding was amended on 18.7.2000 and without serving the amended articles of charges and without giving an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order was issued. It is further submitted that a proceeding under Rule 43B of the Rules would be maintainable if it is initiated within four years of the actual event but in this case, the actual event is of the year 1992 and proceeding in terms of Rule 43-B of the Rules was initiated in 1999 after more than four years of the actual event, it is, therefore, submitted that proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Rules itself was not maintainable. Consequently thereto, the impugned order of punishment would be wholly without jurisdiction.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to show that the proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Rules was initiated within the statutory period of four years from the date of actual event rather this is admitted fact that the initial departmental proceeding was amended in terms of Rule 43B of the Rules on 18th July, 2000. The proceeding in terms of Rule 43B of the Rules, therefore was admittedly initiated after lapse of eight years of the actual event which is said to have taken place in the year 1992.

5. In paragraph 28 of the writ application, it is stated that no notice whatsoever was served upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 43B nor amended articles of charges were served upon him nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him prior to passing of the order impugned. Paragraph 29 of the writ application has been answered in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the statement made in paragraph 28 is matter of record, hence no comments. In the counter affidavit, no averment has been made that any sort of notice of the amended proceeding was ever served upon the petitioner or any opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing of the order impugned.

6. For the reasons aforementioned and discussions made above, the order impugned as contained in Annexure-6 is, therefore, held to be arbitrafy, unreasonable and wholly without jurisdiction.

7. In the result, this application is allowed. Order impugned as contained in Annexure 6 and consequential orders are set aside.