SUDHESHWAR NATH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 provides for with holdment or withdrawal of pension or recovery from the pension of a Government servant the amount of pecuniary loss suffered by the Government if the pensioner is found to be guilty of gross misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during the service period, in a departmental or judicial proceeding. Such departmental or judicial proceeding if not pending while the pensioner was on duty before retirement, may be instituted but subject to certain limitations. As regards the departmental proceeding with which we are concerned in this case, the rule lays down that it can be initiated with the sanction of the State Government with respect to an event which had taken place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. The explanation appended to the rule lays down that the departmental proceeding will be deemed to be instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him. The point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the memo of charges must also be served within the period of four years.

(2.) The facts of the case, which are short and not in dispute, are as follows. The petitioner joined the Government service as an Assistant Engineer in the then Public Works Department (now Road Construction Department) on 2-2-51 and after serving in different capacities superannuated as Chief Engineer, North Bihar Wing, Darbhanga, on 31-3-86. No departmental proceeding or criminal case i. e. judicial proceeding within the meaning of the said rule, was pending against him on the date of superannuation. On 9-4-90 he received a copy of resolution of the State Government contained in memo No. 1544(S) dated 31-3-90 of the Road Construction Department along with memo of charges, initiating departmental proceeding against him for having made illegal appointments/ promotions of 38 persons on extraneous consideration for momentary gain or giving undue benefit to the relatives in violation of the Government orders contained in circular Nos. 16440 and 16441 dated 3-12-80 and 7639 dated 11-6-86. Prior to that, he had been asked to submit explanation on 16-5-87 which he did on 31-7-87. The petitioner has given an explanation as to the circumstances in which the impugned appointments/promotions were made, with which we are not concerned in this case. The contention of the petitioner is that initiation of the departmental proceeding on 9-4-90 i.e. after the expiry of period of four years is illegal and on that ground his pension cannot be withheld or reduced.

(3.) The substance of Rule 43 (b) relevant for the purpose of this case has already been mentioned above but as the controversy involves the interpretation of the relevant part of the rule, it may be appropriate to quote the whole of the rule so that the context in which that particular provision appears may become clear.