The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the disciplinary authority to analyze and determine whether the charges amount to grave misconduct and establish the financial loss before imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

The present L.P.A is preferred by the State of Bihar against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.06.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18055 of 2010.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent – Kumar Ajit Singh was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the alleged allegations that he had committed misdeeds while holding the post of Executive Magistrate, Pakur in the Treasury Office. It is alleged that while handling certain bills matter, he is stated to have violated various provisions of Bihar Finance Rules which has resulted in loss of Rs. 3.5 Lakhs. In this regard, parallel proceedings were initiated like holding of a departmental inquiry as well as criminal proceedings. In the criminal proceedings, he is stated to have been acquitted. On the other hand, departmental inquiry was concluded in imposition of penalty of cutting in pension to the tune of 20%.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the penalty, respondent is stated to have filed Review Petition before the Government. The State Government modified the disciplinary authority’s order to the extent of cutting of pension from 20% to that of 10%. Both the orders were subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 18055 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the disciplinary authority’s order and gave a finding that there is noncompliance to Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 to the extent that disciplinary authority has not analyzed and given finding whether charges are grave misconduct or not?

4. Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 reads as under:-

“The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in 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:

(Underline Supplied)

Provided that -

(a) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment.

(I) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government;

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made;

(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and

(c) Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed.”

5. Perusal of the disciplinary authority’s order, it is crystal clear that disciplinary authority’s order is not in consonance with the aforementioned provision. Accordingly, learned Single Judge has set aside the order of punishment dated 17.09.2009 and appellate authority’s order dated 08.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s order, State has preferred the present L.P.A.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that having regard to the alleged charges levelled against the respondent, it is a case for imposition of penalty. Financial irregularities would fall under the definition of grave misconduct. Therefore, order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant on instruction submitted that during pendency of the present L.P.A., the State has withdrawn the order of penalty on 03.02.2020 in the light of M.J.C. No. 5317 of 2018 proceedings, such withdrawal is subject to L.P.A. decision.

8. Pe