Departmental proceedings initiated post-retirement for events beyond four years are legally unsustainable and void.

The petitioner, a retired Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department (WRD), challenged a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him after his retirement.

The petitioner superannuated on 29.02.2012.

Seven months later, on 12.09.2012, the State initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for alleged irregularities (excess payment to contractors) committed in 2008 while he was an Executive Engineer at Mokama.

Despite raising objections regarding the maintainability of the proceeding due to the "four-year rule," the authorities proceeded, resulting in a punishment order dated 05.10.2017, which directed a 10% pension deduction for three years.

The petitioner also challenged the rejection of his review petition by the Revisional Authority.

1. Whether the initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is legally maintainable when the alleged event occurred more than four years prior to the institution of such proceedings.

2. Whether the departmental proceeding was vitiated by procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to provide a list of documents/witnesses or examine witnesses to prove charges.

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which mandates that a departmental proceeding against a pensioner cannot be in respect of an event that took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding.

Rules 17(3), (4), and (14) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, regarding the mandatory procedure for proving charges through witnesses and evidence.

Precedent from Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) and Jai Prakash Saini v. U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. (2024), establishing that documents must be proved by witnesses and that failure to produce/examine witnesses in a departmental inquiry vitiates the proceeding.

The court found that the departmental proceeding was legally unsustainable on two fronts. First, under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, since the petitioner retired in February 2012 and the proceedings began in September 2012 for an event in 2008, the four-year statutory bar applied.

The court observed gross procedural lapses: the department failed to provide a list of documents or witnesses along with the charge memo, and during the inquiry, no witnesses were examined to prove the department's case or the documents relied upon.

Following the ratio in Roop Singh Negi and Jai Prakash Saini, the court held that mere presentation of documents without oral testimony for verification does not constitute legal proof in a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Consequently, the relationship of master and servant having ended, and the procedural mandates of the CCA Rules being ignored, the inquiry stood vitiated.

It quashed the punishment notification dated 05.10.2017 and the revisional order dated 11.07.2018.

The court directed the respondents to refund the 10% deducted pension amount and pay the remaining 10% gratuity within three months, failing which 6% interest would apply.

The court ordered the restoration of the petitioner’s full pension to 100%.