Petitioner has filed today, the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, the same is accepted and kept on record.

2. In this writ application, petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Resolution No. 4409 dated 19.05.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reform & Rajbhasa.

3. It appears that petitioner was a member of Jharkhand Administrative Service and he retired from service on 28.02.2013 from the post of Joint Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is stated that after one year of retirement, the impugned departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide resolution No. 4409 dated 19.05.2014 for the misconduct, which took place in between 17.11.2008 to 04.02.2009, while petitioner was posted at Godda on the post of Deputy Development Commissioner. It is stated that as per Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the department has no power to initiate the departmental proceeding against a retired employee in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the date of institution of such proceeding. It is submitted that since the present departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner for an event which took place in the financial year 2008-09, therefore, as per Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, the initiation of departmental proceeding is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Bihar and Others versus Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in A.I.R. 1995 Supreme Court 1853.

4. On the other hand, Mrs. Aparajita Bhardwaj, J.C. to Additional Advocate General submits that as per the explanation attached to the proviso of the aforesaid rule, it is clear that the departmental proceeding will be deemed to be instituted from the date on which the charge served upon the delinquent retired employee. She further submits that from perusal of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit it is clear that the charge was framed and served upon the petitioner on 11.09.2012. Under the said circumstance Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules has no application in this case. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in the initiation of present departmental proceeding.

5. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I have gone through the record of the case. Admittedly, petitioner retired from the service on 28.02.2013. It is also stated at Bar that at the time of retirement, petitioner was not under suspension. It then appears that after one year of retirement, departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner by Annexure-1, for an event which took place in between 17.11.2008 to 04.02.2009. This fact has not been specifically denied by the State in its counter-affidavit. It is also not out of place to mention that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Thus, I find it appropriate to quote the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules for ready reference.

43(a) ... ... ... ... ... ...

43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement:

Provided that-

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment;

(i) shall not be instituted s