Departmental proceedings against a pensioner cannot be instituted for events occurring more than four years earlier.

The petitioner, a retired employee of the Civil Court, Munger, was appointed as an Assistant in the Civil Court, Motihari, on 1 January 1977 and was subsequently transferred to the Civil Court, Munger, in October 1987. He superannuated on 31 May 2013

Departmental Proceeding No. 4 of 2019 was initiated against him pursuant to Order No. 59(M) dated 28 June 2019, and he received a notice dated 25 January 2023 requiring him to appear before the Enquiry Officer

The petitioner submitted a representation dated 6 April 2023 seeking that the proceeding be dropped, contending that it had been initiated after his retirement and concerned an event allegedly occurring approximately fourteen years earlier

He challenged the proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, relying on Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

Whether departmental proceedings could be instituted against the petitioner after his superannuation, when the decision to initiate them was taken six years after his retirement

Whether, in view of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, a post-retirement departmental proceeding relating to an event occurring more than four years earlier was legally maintainable

The Court applied Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which permits the competent authority to withhold or withdraw pension, or recover pecuniary loss, where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or causes pecuniary loss during service

Under proviso (a) to Rule 43(b), where departmental proceedings were not instituted while the government servant was in service, they require the sanction of the State Government, must concern an event occurring not more than four years before institution, and must follow the prescribed procedure applicable to dismissal proceedings

The Court also noted the petitioner’s reliance on Anil Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, CWJC No. 5624 of 2014, concerning the four-year limitation under Rule 43(b)

The Court treated the petitioner as a pensioner to whom Rule 43(b) applied

Since he retired on 31 May 2013, but the decision to initiate the departmental proceeding was taken only on 28 June 2019—approximately six years after retirement—the proceeding was initiated beyond the permissible framework of Rule 43(b)

The Court further observed that the alleged misconduct related to an event predating retirement by approximately fourteen years, thereby falling outside the four-year period prescribed by proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43(b)

On that basis, the Court held that continuation of the proceeding was legally impermissible.

The Court held that initiation of the departmental proceeding after six years from the petitioner’s superannuation was not permissible under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

Accordingly, Departmental Proceeding No. 4 of 2019, initiated pursuant to Order No. 59(M) dated 28 June 2019 by the District and Sessions Judge, Munger, was set aside