Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR
Rajani Kant Chaudhary S/o Vikrama Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural details regarding disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges to the disciplinary authority's findings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. interpretation of rule 43(a) and 43(b) of pension rules. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. decision to set aside disciplinary orders. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
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
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.
Disciplinary actions against retired employees must adhere to the applicable pension rules, emphasizing that past conduct cannot be penalized under future conduct provisions.
Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be proved based on preponderance of probability, and compliance with procedural rules is mandatory. Pension deduction requires grave misconduct or pecuniary l....
The main legal point established is the requirement to prove charges with a preponderance of probability and the mandatory nature of procedural rules in departmental proceedings.
A disciplinary authority must provide clear reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings; failure to do so can render the disciplinary action invalid.
Disciplinary action under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules requires proof of grave misconduct or financial loss to the government; failure to provide substantiated reasoning in orders renders th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
