JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the entire departmental proceeding initiated vide Memo No. 2059 dated 24.6.2019.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. While the petitioner was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Ramgarh during the period 2012-14, a complaint was made regarding illegalities and corruptions in construction of additional two rooms in Upgraded Urdu Girls High School, Chitarpur, Ramgarh. On enquiry it was found that there was no requirement of construction of two additional rooms. On the basis of the said finding, a departmental proceeding was initiated by framing a memo of charge contained in Memo No. 2059 dated 24.6.2019 (Annexure-2) under the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. No show cause / explanation was asked from the petitioner after framing the memo of charge. However, after the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 26.6.2019, an opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner by letter dated 8.1.2021 by the Director, Primary Education, Jharkhand, whereby the petitioner replied that he is not guilty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been superannuated from service on 28.2.2018 and the departmental proceeding was initiated vide order dated 24.6.2019 with respect to the event which took place in the year 2012-13. Learned counsel submits that the entire proceeding is vitiated as it is in contravention to Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Pension Rules which stipulates that any departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty cannot be instituted for an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. Learned counsel also submits that it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner after framing memo of charge. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 wherein at paragraph nos. 9 and 10 the scope of the Rule 43(b) has been discussed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while referring to para-8 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is very fairly submitted that the petitioner was superannuated on 28.2.2018 and the respondents have framed charge in 'Prapatra Ka' against the petitioner on 20.6.2019 for the alleged misconduct which took place in the year 2012-13, when it came to the knowledge of the Department for the first time. Learned counsel submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records. To decide the issue involved in this case, it is important to refer to the provisions, as contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which are being quoted herein below:

“43. (a) ----------------------.

(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 save with sanction of the State Government ;

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and

(iii)----