IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions for misconduct against a retired government employee must be initiated within four years as per Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules; otherwise, such proceedings are invalid.

ORDER :

AJIT KUMAR, J

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

“1. That the Petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief(s):-

A. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the punishment order of the Disciplinary Authority issued by the Respondent No. 4, Deputy Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar vide order dated 25.05.2024 bearing Memo No. 2022-2493 dated 31.05.2024 whereby and whereunder Petitioner has been punished with 10 per cent pension deduction for the entire lifetime as under Rule 43(B) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES without any application of mind and without proving the misconduct of the petitioner.

B. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/Rule(s)/direction(s) in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Respondent No. 3, Additional Secretary. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Government of Bihar vide order dated 29.08.2024 bearing Memo No. 2022-4213 dated 30.08.2024 whereby and whereunder the review application of the Petitioner has been dismissed without considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

C. For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the full payment of the retirement benefits to the Petitioner and all other consequential monetary benefits and promotions due to the Petitioner for the period of withholding of 10% of the retirement benefits of the Petitioner.

D. For passing such further or other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner got retired from service on 31.01.2021 from the post of Executive Magistrate, Areraj, East Champaran and for an allegation dated 16.03.2018, the memo of charge was issued in the year 2022, which was duly signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Veerpur, as contained in Memo No. 827-2 dated 30.04.2022.

4. It has next been submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is in no way connected with the petitioner as neither the Jamabandi in question was created by him nor any direction for ensuring possession was ever issued to the petitioner while he was in service. By referring to the allegations as leveled in the memo of charge (Annexure-P/5 Series), even the authorities before initiating the proceeding in question under Rule 43(b) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES , 1950, has not been able to show any pecuniary loss caused to the State Government, by the conduct of the petitioner to construe the same as gross misconduct for justifying the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, in which the impugned punishment order is said to have passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this Court to the scope of initiation of any departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the BIHAR PENSION RULES submits that the allegation for which the departmental proceeding, which is said to have been initiated, relates to a period which is beyond four years and this issue has already been considered by this Court in various judgments relying upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, rendered in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in1995 Supp (3) SCC 56, wherein it has been categorically held that for an allegation causing pecuniary loss to the Government would fall within the ambit of gross misconduct after retirement, and the allegation for which the proceedings are sought to be initiated, should not be related to the period beyo