JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the Memo No. 333/2004, dated 17.05.2017 and Prapatra ‘Ka’ issued by respondent No. 3, pertaining to initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner invoking provision of Rule-43(b) of the of Jharkhand Pension Rules.

Further prayer has been made for a declaration that the terms of Memo No. 333/2004, dated 17.05.2017 and Prapatra ‘Ka’ issued under the signature of respondent No. 3, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.

3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer under the Water Resources Department on 25.01.1979 and thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.01.2011, from the post of Assistant Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Hazaribagh. In his entire service career of 30 long years, he worked to the full satisfaction of his Superior Authority and no complaint whatsoever has ever been made against him. After his retirement, the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand issued “No Demand Certificate” to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that after lapse of more than six years from the date of his retirement, the respondent No. 3 issued a resolution contained in Memo No. 333/2004, dated 17.05.2017, wherein a decision has been taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner invoking provision of Rule-43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Petitioner was served with the resolution, along with Prapatra ‘Ka’ alleging therein that because the petitioner was not careful in supervising the bridge's construction, the P1 and P2 foundations of the bridge tilted to one side, causing the State Government to incur significant financial losses. It is the petitioner's specific case that the respondent-authorities are well aware that the petitioner was not posted and working as Executive Engineer at the time foundation works were completed, but the petitioner has been issued a memo of charges. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has superannuated from service on 31.01.2011 and decision to initiate departmental proceeding was taken on 17.05.2017, meaning thereby the government has decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner after more than six years from the date of his retirement. On perusal of proviso to Rule-43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, it is manifestly clear that a bar is put on initiation of departmental proceeding with respect to an event which took place four years prior to the date of retirement of an employee and in view of specific bar imposed by the statute the respondent-authorities have committed error in law by initiating the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The issue is no more res integra in view of decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Bihar and Others vs. Mohd Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 56. This Court also in several decisions has held that fresh departmental proceeding could not be initiated after lapse of four year from date of retirement. Recently, in a reported case of Suresh Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand, 2017 (3) JLJR 136, this court has held that no departmental proceeding could be initiated against an employee with respect to an event that occurred before four years from the date of retirement of the employee. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents, in their counter-affidavit have nowhere denied this fact that departmental proceeding has been initiated after four years from the date of retirement of petitioner. Since the departmental proceeding could not be initiated after four years from the date of retirement, resolution contained in Memo No. 333/2004, dated 17.05.2017 and Prapatra ‘Ka’ deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, counter-affidavi