Facts
The petitioner, an Amin, was arrested in connection with a 2011 vigilance case and faced departmental proceedings initiated in 2012.
Source reference: para. 3–10, 13He was dismissed from service in 2014.
Source reference: para. 3–10, 13Following successive writ proceedings and remands, the appellate authority set aside the dismissal in 2024 and directed that the matter proceed under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, as the petitioner had retired on 31 December 2019.
Source reference: para. 3–10, 13In 2026, the respondents nevertheless ordered his dismissal retrospectively from 16 April 2014.
Source reference: para. 3–10, 13He challenged that order and sought salary arrears and post-retiral benefits.
Source reference: para. 3–10, 13Issues
Whether, after the petitioner’s retirement, the respondents could impose dismissal from service retrospectively under a proceeding converted to one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
Source reference: para. 11–16Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential salary arrears and post-retiral benefits after the dismissal order was set aside.
Source reference: para. 2, 19–21Law Applied
Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 permits the competent authority, in specified circumstances involving grave misconduct or pecuniary loss, to withhold or withdraw pension or recover the loss from pension; it does not provide for dismissal from service after retirement.
Source reference: para. 14–16Under Shambhu Saran v. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) PLJR 665, a departmental inquiry commenced before superannuation may continue after retirement, but only for the limited purpose of taking action authorised by Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules.
Source reference: para. 17–18Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner had retired on 31 December 2019 and that the appellate authority had accordingly directed the proceedings to continue under Rule 43(b).
Source reference: para. 13Although an inquiry begun during service could continue after superannuation, its permissible outcome was confined to action under that Rule.
Source reference: para. 15–18Because Rule 43(b) does not authorise dismissal from service, the respondents could not use it to impose a retrospective dismissal effective from 2014.
Source reference: para. 15–18Holding
The Court held that the retrospective dismissal order dated 28 March 2026 was unsustainable and set it aside.
It allowed the writ petition with consequential benefits, directing payment of salary arrears for 7 September 2011 to 31 December 2019 within four months and entitlement to all post-retiral benefits.
Source reference: para. 20–21Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882
Original Court PDF
Chandra Kant ChoudharyvsThe State of Bihar
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
