LAWS(PAT)-2012-5-72

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BHUWANESHWAR SHARMA

Decided On May 10, 2012
STATE OF BIHAR Appellant
V/S
Bhuwaneshwar Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court has been preferred by the State of Bihar and its Officials as they are aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.11.2009 passed in CWJC No. 14546 of 2009 (Bhubneshwar Sharma Vs. the State of Bihar and others), 2010 1 PLJR 686, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ application and set aside the order of punishment of withholding of 100% pension and gratuity of the petitioner on the basis that the entire proceedings initiated pursuant to Resolution dated 25.5.2009 for proceeding against the petitioner afresh in connection with the allegation relating to 1989 was not permissible in view of the bar prescribed under proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules?).

(2.) Before dealing with the other facts in detail, it is to be noticed that the writ petitioner Bhubneshwar Sharma who has been arrayed as respondent no.1 herein, filed the aforesaid CWJC No. 14546 of 2009 for quashing the order dated 17.9.2009, whereby pursuant to an order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 9210 of 2009 dated 4.8.2009 the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna passed a reasoned order reiterating the decision of the State Government to proceed against the writ petitioner/Respondent no.1 pursuant to the Resolution No. 418 dated 25.5.2009.

(3.) It appears from the order dated 4.8.2009 passed in CWJC No. 9210 of 2009 that the respondent no.1 herein, had challenged the said Resolution of the State Government bearing memo No. 418 dated 25.5.2009 on the ground that such decision of the State Government amounted to initiation of a proceeding beyond four years of the alleged misconduct after his superannuation and it should not have been done after 12 years of his superannuation. This Court, on such prayer, directed respondent no.1 herein, to highlight his contention before the Government and made the competent authority of the State Government, in turn, obliged to consider such contention by passing an order afresh. It is in this background that the said order dated 17.9.2009 came to be passed, rejecting the plea of the respondent No.1 that initiation of proceeding by Resolution dated 25.5.2009 was barred by Proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Rules.