P. B. Bajanthri, J. –

I.A. No.1 of 2020.

Heard I.A. No.1 of 2020 arising out of L.P.A. No.186 of 2020. Respondents have not filed objection to I.A. No.1 of 2020 for condonation of delay. Further taking note of the pleadings in I.A. No.1 of 2020 for condonation of delay of 190 days, we are satisfied with reasons to condone the delay of 190 days. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2020 stands allowed while condoning the delay of 190 days in filing the present L.P.A.

L.P.A. No.186 of 2020:

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, main matter (L.P.A. No.186 of 2020) is taken up for final disposal.

3. The appellant was holding the post of Deputy Development Commissioner. He was appointed to State Cadre, namely, Bihar State Service Administration. He was placed under suspension on 26.03.2010 on certain alleged allegation. He was subjected to departmental inquiry under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘C.C.A. Rules, 2005’) on 04.02.2011. The appellant’s explanation to the charge memo was not satisfied and it was resulted in holding of departmental inquiry by appointing Inquiring and Presenting Officers. The Inquiring Officer had submitted report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, stoppage of promotion till the date of superannuation, censored and not entitled to anything during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 18.09.2014, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.13854 of 2016 in assailing the penalty order. The learned Single Judge set aside the punishment order and remanded the matter to the Inquiring Officer to hold inquiry with regard to charge no.1 only after giving a report of Forensic Science Laboratory to the petitioner and whatever the plea to be taken by him would be considered in accordance with law. It is further ordered that: –

“However, it is made clear that the petitioner has already been superannuated from service, so only the proceeding may be initiated under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error in remanding the matter to hold inquiry insofar as charge no.1 read with initiation of inquiry under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. It is contended that there is no financial loss caused to the State Government. Therefore, question of remanding the matter to hold inquiry under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is incorrect. It is also submitted that earlier in the inquiry, charge no.1 was not proved. Therefore, question of holding inquiry or remanding the matter to hold inquiry in respect of charge no.1 is not correct. In support of the aforementioned contentions, he has relied on unamended Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. He has also cited three decisions, namely, (i) 2010 (3) PLJR 845 (Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors.), (ii) 2007 (3) BLJR 2972 (Bihar State Electricity Boad vs. Sharda Prasad Sinha and Ors.) (paragraph-8), (iii) C.W.J.C. No.17198 of 2014 [: 2023 (6) BLJ 703] (Dhirendra Prasad Shrivastava vs. The State of Bihar and others) decided on 17.10.2023 and further relied on decision of L.P.A. No.1682 of 2018 (The State of Bihar and others vs. Kumar Ajit Singh) passed in C.W.J.C. No.18055 of 2018 decided on 06.02.2023.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-State resisted the aforementioned contentions and submitted that on reading of unamended Rule 43(b), there is an ingredient word ‘or’. Therefore, invariably for initiation of inquiry or ordering punishment under Rule 43(b) it is not that there must be pecuniary loss caused to the State exchequer. The other materials may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of invoking Rule 43(b). Therefore, there is no infirmity or lacuna in