Departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) are barred when instituted beyond four years of the alleged event.

The petitioner, an Executive Engineer in the Water Resources Department, was posted on deputation with the Local Area Engineering Organisation, Works Division No. 1, Muzaffarpur, in 2018. He was relieved from the deputation on 30 June 2018 and superannuated from government service on 31 March 2021.

An Additional Secretary of the Planning and Development Department forwarded a letter dated 3 December 2018 to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, recommending initiation of departmental proceedings and enclosing an undated charge memo concerning the alleged delayed submission of utilisation reports under the Chief Minister Regional Development Scheme.

The Water Resources Department subsequently issued Resolution/Memo No. 2133 dated 1 September 2022, initiating proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, but his objection was rejected on 20 December 2022. He thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the resolution and the consequential decision.

1. Whether departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 were validly instituted by a competent authority against the petitioner after his retirement?

2. Whether the proceedings were barred by the four-year limitation prescribed under proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43(b), having regard to the alleged events of 2018 and the resolution dated 1 September 2022?

3. Whether proceedings under Rule 43(b) could be sustained in the absence of an allegation of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss caused to the Government by misconduct or negligence?

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 from pension, where a pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have committed grave misconduct or caused pecuniary loss to the Government through misconduct or negligence.

Under proviso (a)(ii), post-retiral departmental proceedings may relate only to an event occurring not more than four years before institution of the proceedings; such proceedings must also be sanctioned and conducted by the prescribed competent authority.

The Court further noted the amendment dated 13 May 2020 substituting “Appointment Authority of the post held at the time of retirement” for “State Government” in the relevant provision. Accordingly, before the amendment, the State Government was required to decide upon initiation, whereas after the amendment, the appointment authority was competent to do so.

The Court held that the letter dated 3 December 2018 from the Additional Secretary of the Planning and Development Department was merely a recommendation to the petitioner’s parent department and did not itself institute departmental proceedings. The Additional Secretary was neither the petitioner’s conducting authority nor appointing authority, and the enclosed undated charge memo therefore could not constitute valid initiation of proceedings.

Neither the State Government nor the competent appointment authority had taken a valid decision to institute proceedings within the prescribed period.

Further, the alleged events related to the petitioner’s deputation, which ended on 30 June 2018, and the four-year period had expired before the resolution dated 1 September 2022 was issued.

The Court also found that the proposed charge memo did not allege grave misconduct or pecuniary loss caused to the Government by misconduct or negligence, which are necessary elements for invoking Rule 43(b).

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed Resolution/Memo No. 2133 dated 1 September 2022 initiating proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

All consequential proceedings and decisions founded on that resolution, including the Conducting Officer’s order dated 20 December 2022 rejecting the petitioner’s objection, were also set aside.