JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the resolution dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure-1/A to the present writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent No.3 whereby a decision has been taken to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Pension Rules [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’], which according to the petitioner, is illegal as the cause of action for the alleged conduct of the petitioner had arisen in the year 2009 whereas the said decision was taken by the State Government as late as in the month of November, 2016.

2. The relevant facts emanating from the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 as the Deputy Collector. In the year 1986, he was granted Junior Selection Grade. In the year 2004, he was allocated Jharkhand Cadre due to reorganization of the erstwhile State of Bihar and was posted as Additional Collector. Subsequently, he was promoted to the rank of Joint Secretary in the year 2009. While the petitioner was working in the capacity of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand, a show cause notice was issued to him on 26.11.2009 alleging that he was involved in commission of irregularities with respect to printing of the ration cards. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.04.2011. Thereafter, no decision was taken in this regard and the petitioner superannuated from service w.e.f. 30.11.2011 and was also paid the retiral dues. However, the Government of Jharkhand vide impugned resolution dated 18.11.2016, took a decision to initiate a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules against the petitioner. Simultaneously, a chargesheet was issued to him containing the details of charges. It was alleged against the petitioner in the chargesheet that he was the part of conspiracy in awarding the work of printing ‘Antyodya ration cards’ and ‘BPL cards’ to M/s Setu Printers, Ranchi without following due procedure. The chargesheet also referred the order passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 118/2011 whereby the concerned State authorities were directed to pay Rs.64,74,761/- to M/s Setu Printers, Ranchi along with interest @ 6% per annum.

3. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned resolution dated 18.11.2016 issued by the State Government whereby a proceeding under Section 43(b) of the said Rules was decided to be initiated against the petitioner is barred under its Proviso (a)(ii).

4. While substantiating the said argument, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the cause of action for initiation of proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the said Rules started on 26.11.2009 i.e. the day the show cause notice relating to the said aspect was issued to the petitioner, whereas the impugned resolution was issued as late as on 18.11.2016. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a proceeding under Rule 43(b) can only be initiated, if the event for which the said action is to be taken by the government, has taken place within four years. In the present case, though the cause of action arose as back as in the month of November, 2009, the impugned resolution dated 18.11.2016 was issued after about seven years and hence the same is hit by Proviso (a)(ii) of Rule 43(b).

5. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 17.09.2009, informed his counterpart of Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand regarding involvement of few officers including the petitioner in getting the ration cards printed through M/s Setu Printers, Ranchi.

Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa vide memo No. 7737 dated 26.11.2009 calling upon him to submit his reply within 15 days. However, the petitioner did not