The central legal point established in the judgment is that a single act of omission or error of judgment, without ulterior motive, does not constitute misconduct, especially when backed by a possible explanation.

Jyoti Saran, J.

The petitioner in this writ petition prays for quashing of the order passed by the State Government in its Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department bearing Notification No. 2166 dated 13.5.2015, whereby in exercise of powers vested under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Pension Rules") an order is issued for deduction of 20% from the pension admissible to the petitioner. A copy of the order is impugned at Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is also aggrieved by rejection of his review application as communicated through Memo No. 4457 dated 5.10.2015 of the Special Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, impugned at Annexure 2 to the writ petition.

2. The facts of the present case lie in a very narrow compass.

3. The petitioner held a post of District Sub-Registrar and was proceeded against by drawing a disciplinary proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Disciplinary Rules") by service of a charge memo vide resolution bearing No. 2328 dated 9.5.2012, impugned at Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Four charges were levelled against the petitioner, all of which revolved around the registration allowed by the petitioner in respect of two plots of land by putting them under separate category of "commercial" and "residential", though the two plots were situated adjacent to each other and the parties transacting were also the same. The charge memo alleged failure of the petitioner to make spot enquiry in the matter which allegedly led to a loss of Government revenue to the tune of Rs. 1,25,000/-.

4. The petitioner responded to the charges by denying the same but the matter led to a formal enquiry. During the pendency of the enquiry the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2012. On superannuation of the petitioner the proceedings were converted into one under Rule 43(b) of "the Pension Rules" vide resolution No. 2066 dated 25.3.2013. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner submitted his report on 25.6.2014 upholding the charges which was forwarded to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary of the Department through letter dated 16.7.2014 at Annexure 6 series. The petitioner filed his reply to the second show cause at Annexure 7 again explaining the position but the same has resulted in the order of penalty, impugned at Annexure 1, whereby 20% of his pension has been ordered to be deducted and the review application also rejected vide Annexure 2.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel has appeared on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate on record and while denying the charges levelled against the petitioner as without foundation, he has invited the attention of this Court to the report of the "Vibhagiye Gahan Samiksha Samiti" enclosed at Annexure 8, whereby a three Member Committee consisting of the Officers in the rank of Assistant Inspector General of Registration after taking note of the explanation of the petitioner as to categorization of the two plots, have recommended for acceptance of the explanation of the petitioner while observing that there was no evidence found in the report submitted by the Inspector, Koshi Division, of receiving illegal gratification by the petitioner. He submits in reference to the explanation of the petitioner present at Annexure 7 that it has been explained by the petitioner that since one of the two plots was situated within 50 feet of the main road that it was put under the "commercial" category while the other plot was situated beyond the distance of 50 feet, hence it was put in the "residential" category as per the guidelines in the Minimum Valuation Register (MVR).

7. He, in reference to the report of the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner submits that the factum of spot enquiry has been accepted by t