Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the resolution contained in Memo No.359 dated 22.10.2021, by which the Disciplinary Authority has initiated a departmental proceeding purportedly under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1950’).

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna on 28.01.1988, whereafter he was transferred as District Agriculture Officer, Saran at Chapra on 29.06.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that two errant sub-ordinate officers used to harass the petitioner and they were not co-operating with the petitioner in discharge of the official work, leading to the petitioner having informed the police about the misdeeds of the said two sub-ordinate officers, however, no action was taken and instead a false trap case was lodged and the petitioner was made an accused in Vigilance P.S. Case No.18 of 2003, whereafter he was taken into custody and enlarged on bail on 08.01.2004. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 21.02.2004 and subsequently, the suspension was revoked, vide order dated 04.3.2004. Finally, on 22.03.2005, inquiry was instituted against the aforesaid two errant sub-ordinate officers, however, in the meantime, charge-sheet was submitted in the aforesaid Vigilance P.S. Case No.18 of 2003, but the same is still pending consideration by the learned Trial Court.

3. At this juncture, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though a show-cause notice was issued just prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2019, vide letter dated 08.01.2019 and charges were framed under Prapatra (Ka) as also the petitioner was called upon to submit his written/defence statement but the respondents had initiated a departmental proceeding, for the first time, under the provisions contained in Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 1950, only vide Memo dated 22.10.2021, i.e. after retirement of the petitioner and that too for an allegation pertaining to the year, 2003.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 1950, to submit that the proviso thereof, contemplates that in case any departmental proceeding has not been instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, the same can be instituted after retirement only in respect of the event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56, to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 1950, can only be initiated after retirement, in connection with such misconduct which might have taken place within four years of the initiation of such departmental proceeding qua the delinquent, however, in the present case, the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2019, but the departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 1950 was initiated only on 22.10.2021 and that too for an allegation pertaining to the year 2003, i.e. in connection with a misconduct which had taken place beyond 4 years of initiation of the said proceedings, hence such proceeding is not only barred by the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 1950, but is also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Idris Ansari (supra).

5. Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that a departmental proceeding had already been initiated prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2019, by way of issuance of a show-cause notice dated 08.01.2019, pertaining to Vigilance P.S. Case No.18 of 2003, hence the subsequent departmental proceeding instituted under