Disciplinary actions against retired government employees must adhere to procedural norms and valid evidence; Rule 43(a) pertains to future conduct and not misconduct occurring during service.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sarveshwar Tiwary, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, learned Advocate for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the notification, as contained in Memo No. 2353 dated 19.08.2019, issued by the respondent no.3, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of 10% monthly deduction from his pension till five years. The review application preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority also came to be rejected by the notification as contained in Memo No. 382 dated 21.01.2020, which also put to challenge by filing an Interlocutory Application, bearing I.A. No. 1 of 2024.

3. The short facts, which led to filing of the present writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Road Division No.1, Muzaffarpur for the period 15.01.1996 to 31.01.1996 on account of some irregularities the petitioner was put to departmental proceeding by serving a Memo of Charge (Prapatra ‘K’), containing six charges, under the Memo No. 5855 dated 28.05.2012. On receipt of memo of charge, the petitioner appeared and filed his detailed reply, the copy of which is already placed on record. The conducting officer enquired the matter in detail and submitted his enquiry report on 23.03.2015 exonerating the petitioner from charge nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. So far as charge nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, the enquiry officer made a recommendation that since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Department, therefore, the charges, as alleged, can be condoned. On receipt of the enquiry report, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, the disciplinary authority by differing with the enquiry report has issued second show-cause notice with the tentative finding of the difference of opinion. The petitioner, in response to the second show-cause notice, submitted his application reiterating the earlier version of the defence statement. Finally, the impugned order directing for deduction of 10% of pension for five years came to be passed, the copy of which is marked as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of punishment has contended that apart from the fact that the charges were with respect to an event, which took place prior to sixteen years of the issuance of the Memo of charge and in the, meantime, after cadre distribution, the services of the petitioner was transferred from Road Construction Department to Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna; but disciplinary authority failed to obtain any consent from the Rural Works Department before initiation of departmental proceeding. It is further contended that admittedly the petitioner has been posted for 2½ months as an Assistant Engineer under the Road Division No.1, Muzaffarpur and in the said period, no pecuniary loss was caused to the department. The enquiry officer after a full fledged enquiry submitted the enquiry report and exonerated the petitioner with respect to charge nos. 1, 2 3, and 4. So far the charge nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, after having found that there is no pecuniary loss caused to the department, he recommended that the charge nos. 5 and 6 levelled against the petitioner may be condoned.

5. Referring to the second show-cause notice, learned Advocate for the petitioner further contended that there is no specific tentative reason for disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, only opined that effort should be taken by the petitioner for keeping the record up-to-date. Only on such so called tentative reason, he differed with the finding of the e