A repealed 1992 circular cannot prevent departmental proceedings governed by the 2005 Rules.

The petitioner, a retired Bihar Agriculture Service officer, superannuated on 31 January 2022.

A vigilance case had been registered against him in 2021.

In January 2023, after his retirement, the State framed charges and initiated a departmental proceeding; a departmental enquiry report had also been submitted.

The petitioner sought to quash the charge memo, enquiry report and related orders, relying on a Government resolution dated 11 September 2002 and arguing that no departmental proceeding was pending on the date of his retirement.

He also sought to stay the departmental proceeding pending the criminal case

Whether the Government resolution dated 11 September 2002 prevented the State from proceeding departmentally against the petitioner after his retirement.

Whether the charge memo, enquiry report and related orders should be quashed, including on the ground that the departmental and criminal proceedings concerned the same charges and evidence.

The Court applied Rule 32 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

In particular, Rule 32(2) repeals instructions issued under the earlier Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935; Rule 32(5) preserves departmental proceedings initiated under the repealed rules.

The Court held that the petitioner could not rely on the 1992 notification in light of the 2005 Rules.

The State also referred to Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules as substituted by corrigendum, but the Court’s stated basis for dismissing the petition was Rule 32 of the 2005 Rules.

The Court treated the departmental proceeding as one initiated under the 2005 Rules and held that the earlier 1992 notification relied upon by the petitioner could not assist him because Rule 32 repealed instructions issued under the earlier rules.

Although the Court noted that the State had not answered the petitioner’s argument concerning the 1992 resolution, it concluded that the resolution provided no basis for relief in view of the 2005 Rules.

The judgment did not separately analyse the petitioner’s request to stay the departmental proceeding pending the criminal case.

The challenges to the charge memo, enquiry report and related orders were therefore rejected.