STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BIPIN BIHARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters -Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred with respect to the order dated 24.11.99, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 3201 of 1999 Bipin Bihari Prasad v. State of Bihar, whereby it has been held that the proceeding against Respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner), under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules) is bad in law in view of the provisions contained in proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43 of the Pension Rules, which is to the effect that the impugned action is with respect to dereliction on the part of Respondent No. 1 said to have taken place four years prior to the institution of the proceeding. The State of Bihar has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) A brief resume of facts will suffice. Respondent No. 1 herein was posted as an Assistant Engineer in the Western Kosi Embankment Team, Jamalpur, Darbhanga, in 1987 -88. The Western Kosi Embankment got breached at two places during that period and, therefore, steps had to be taken to plug the breaches. Respondent No. 1 was called upon to make an estimate and submit the same for approval. After the work was completed and the bills had been paid, the concerned functionaries of the State Government found fault with the mode and manner in which the estimate was prepared and the bills had been passed. It was suspected that the estimate had been overblown which resulted in loss of revenue to the State of Bihar. In that view of the matter, the State Government had issued show -cause notice dated 12.5.81 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), calling upon Respondent No. 1 to show cause with respect to the allegations against Respondent No. 1. It appears from the totality of circumstances that this show -cause notice was in terms of Rule 55A of the Civil Services, (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules'). Cause was shown by Respondent No. 1 by his communication dated 9.6.89 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The authorities thereafter referred the matter to the flying squad of the Engineering Department for verification which took some time. Before a final decision could be taken on the departmental proceeding so initiated in terms of Rule 55A of the CCA Rules, Respondent No. 1 superannuated from the service of the Bihar Government with effect from 30.6.97, The State Government, therefore, issued order dated 6.1.99 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition), converting the departmental proceedings to one under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules, on the heels of which the impugned order dated 12.1.99 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) was issued whereby, in substance, the monthly pension of the petitioner has been reduced by 25%.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order dated 12.1.99 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition), the petitioner preferred the aforesaid CWJC No. 3201 of 1999, assailing the validity of the same on the ground that the alleged dereliction had taken place way back in 1987 -88, the petitioner superannuated with effect from 30.6.97 the aforesaid order dated 6.1.99 (Annexure 6) is hit by the provisions of Clause (a)(ii) of the proviso to Rule 43 of the Pension Rules. The contention found favour with the learned Single Judge who has held in the impugned order that the proceeding under Rule 43, not having been initiated within four years of the institution of the proceeding under the Pension Rules, is bad in law. He has, therefore, set aside the aforesaid order dated 12.1.99 (Annexure 8), and passed consequential orders.