STATE OF BIHAR Vs. MD. VAKIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point involved in this case is with respect to the maintainability and legality of the departmental proceedings instituted against the respondent -writ petitioner with respect to an event which admittedly occurred during his service. The respondent -writ petitioner retired on 30.1.1997 but much before the date of his retirement, i.e. on 12.10.1990 the departmental proceedings were initiated against him by issuance of a charge sheet with respect to the allegations of defalcation of Government money. In terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules it was wholly permissible for the Government to continue the departmental proceedings since these had been instituted while the respondent -writ petitioner was on duty at a point when he was in service of the Government.

(2.) RULE 43(b) reads thus : - -

(3.) ON going through this Judgment we respectfully find ourselves in disagreement with the view of the learned single Judge because Rule 43(b) (supra) does not at all contemplate the passing of any specific order, much less any 'conversion order' with respect to the continuance of the proceedings. The only requirement of Rule 43(b) is that if the proceedings have not been instituted while the Government servant was on duty, these cannot be instituted except after the sanction of the State Government. In the present case the sanction question is not at all relevant or applicable because it is the admitted case of the parties that the proceedings were in fact instituted in the year 1990 (at a point of time when the respondent was 'on duty') by the issuance of the charge -sheet against him. Actually when we look at the Explanation to Rule 43(b) (supra), we find that even therein it has clearly been mentioned that the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charge -sheet is issued to the concerned delinquent government employee. In this case, the charge -sheet having been issued at a point of time when he was in service, the departmental proceeding should be deemed to have beeninstituted at that very point of time and, therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the proceedings were vitiated on any count. The view expressed by the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court therefore does not commend us to be correct in law.