Ashutosh Kumar, J. – Heard Mr. Abhinav Srivastava for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Lall for the respondent/Patna High Court. The State is represented by Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha.

2. The original writ petitioner, a retired Judicial Officer, has been punished with his entire pension having been permanently withdrawn after excluding the pension amount which was commuted by him.

3. A proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for having granted bail to one of the accused persons who was found to be in possession of fake currency notes and in the second instance of discharging an accused who was arrested on hot-chase with narcotics.

4. After the retirement of the petitioner from the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari on 31.01.2010, a decision was taken to subject him to departmental proceeding for having granted bail to one Bhuar Ansari, a resident of Nepal, and one Manoj Sah in connection with Raxaul P.S. Case No. 192 of 2009, which was instituted for the offences under Sections 489 (A) (B) (C), 121 A, 419, 420 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the U.A.P.A. Act as also for discharging one person who happened to be, at the relevant time, a Member of Bihar Legislative Assembly, in N.D.P.S. Case No. 180 of 1992.

5. The two charges which were levelled against the petitioner were that bail was granted to an accused of Nepal origin on the slender ground of the seized currency notes not having been certified by the Bank authorities to be counterfeit and the discharge of the accused person was on the ground of narcotics having been recovered from another person who had died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, the charges which were levelled against the petitioner was that the reasons assigned in both the cases for grant of bail and discharge of the accused was inappropriate, unjust and, therefore, the presumption was that those decisions were arrived at on extraneous considerations.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid two instances, the third charge framed against the petitioner, as noted above, was that such judicial orders indicated extraneous consideration, tantamounting to gross judicial impropriety, lack of integrity and of an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer.

7. It appears from the records that in the first round of the departmental proceeding, the charges were found to be proved against the petitioner, but the High Court quashed the report and directed for a de novo enquiry, nominating other persons as Inquiry and Presenting Officers. This was done because the High Court was of the view that the proceedings had been conducted ex parte without intimation to the petitioner.

8. In the second instance, the Inquiry Officer, namely, the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur inquired the charges and submitted his report on 15.04.2014 before the High Court.

9. The Standing Committee of the High Court, in its meeting dated 29.04.2014 resolved to accept such report and issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner to explain as to why he be not held guilty of the charges proved against him and be punished accordingly.

10. After the receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the Standing Committee of the High Court, considering the gravity of the misconduct proved against the petitioner, directed for withdrawal of his entire pension after excluding the commutation of pension effected before passing of such order.

11. A perusal of the inquiry report reflects that in the case of counterfeit currency notes, where unjustly bail was granted to the accused persons by the petitioner, those two accused persons were apprehended by the police on chase and from the possession of one of whom a mobile telephone and five currency notes of Rs. 500 denomination was recovered. Three of the associates of the two arrested accused persons had managed to flee-away. Rest information was based on the confession of the aforesaid two accused persons which inclu