The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to the time limits specified in the pension rules for initiating disciplinary proceedings and revising pension orders.

Barin Ghosh and Madhavendra Saran JJ.

1. While appointed as Deputy Director of Accounts, the writ petitioner, respondent in these appeals, superannuated on 31.7.1994. He was then re-employed w.e.f 7.2.95. While the writ petitioner respondent was in re-employment a letter was issued to him on 21.9.1995 alleging therein that he made payment on 17.3.92 in respect of supply of certain chemicals, but on test the same turned out to be not the chemicals intendended to be purchased, but were 99 percent water. In the letter it was stated that by reason of the same, the employer has suffered loss of Rs. 7,80,000.00. The letter expressed prima facie view of the fact that such loss was occasioned by reason of the action of the writ petitioner, respondent, in making the payment. The letter however concluded by saying that the writ petitioner respondent is called upon to explain within fortnight of the receipt of the letter as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The re-employment of the writ petitioner respondent came to an end on 6.2.1996.

2. On 25.4.1996 a charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner, respondent. In that it was contended that by reason of the payment made by the writ petitioner, respondent, the employer suffered loss of Rs. 7,80,000.00, The writ petitioner, respondent, thereupon filed CWJC No. 4940/96 contending that the incident of making payment occurred on 17.3.92, being the event which caused the loss to the employer, and as charge sheet was issued after 4 years from 17.3.92, by reasons of the previsions contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, the charge sheet is of no value and no proceeding on the basis thereof can proceed further. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order rendered by a learned Single Judge in relation to the said writ petition, the contentions of the writ petitioner, respondent, were upheld and accordingly, the said charge sheet was quashed. After quashing the charge sheet the learned Single Judge made it clear that the same will not stand in the way of authorities to proceed under Rule 139(a) of the said rules.

3. While the employer Board preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order, registered as LPA No. 446/98, but inasmuch as there was no stay of the operation of the judgment and order under appeal the Board without prejudiced to its rights and contentions in the appeal proceeded under Rule 139(a) of the said Rules and upon giving a show cause concluded the matter by passing an order dated 22.1.2003 and thereby reduced the pension payable to the writ petitioner, respondent, to the extent 20 percent thereof.

4. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the employer Board dated 22.1.2003 the writ petitioner respondent filed yet another writ petition registered as CWJC No. 2009/2003. This writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 15.4.2005 holding that the provisions contained in Sub-rules (a)(b) and (c) of Rule 139 of the said Rules are interlinked to each other and recourse thereof, as was purported to be taken by the employer Board, under Rule 139(c) could not be taken after lapse of 3 years from the date of sanction of pension of the respondent, writ petitioner. Learned Single Judge found that while the pension payable to the writ petitioner was sanctioned on 31.7.1994, the order dated 22.1.2003 was passed after lapse of three years from 31.7.94 and as such the order dated 22.1.2003 is not sustainable. In such view of the matter the said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 22.1.2003 was quashed. Against the judgment and order passed on 15.4.2005 in the said writ petition the employer Board has filed LPA No. 759 of 2005.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length in respect of both the appeals.

6. Learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeals contended that four years time as mentioned in Rule 43(b) of the said Rules should be counted fr