Failure to consider a pensioner’s second-show-cause reply vitiates Rule 43(b) punishment and mandates fresh decision.

The petitioner, a Child Development Project Officer appointed on 14 December 1985, faced allegations in 2004 of demanding illegal gratification from Anganwadi sevika and sahaika while posted at Muzaffarpur.

Although the departmental file was initially treated as closed, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by departmental resolution dated 4 August 2010.

The inquiry continued through several changes of Inquiry/Conducting Officers, and the petitioner superannuated on 31 January 2013.

The proceeding was thereafter continued/converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

The inquiry report found the charges proved, and a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which she replied on 25 June 2015.

The disciplinary authority subsequently ordered withholding of 90% of her pension by Memo No. 3373 dated 28 July 2016.

The petitioner challenged both the initiation/conversion of the proceeding and the punishment order.

Whether the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the Minister-in-charge, rather than with prior approval of the Chief Minister, was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Whether the proceeding could validly continue or be converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules after the petitioner’s superannuation.

Whether the allegations of accepting illegal gratification constituted “grave misconduct” sufficient to invoke Rule 43(b).

Whether the punishment order was vitiated because the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner’s reply to the second show-cause notice dated 25 June 2015.

The Court applied Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, under which pension may be withheld or withdrawn where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or causes pecuniary loss to the Government through misconduct or negligence.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 665, holding that a disciplinary proceeding instituted before retirement may continue after superannuation under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules without a separate express governmental order.

It also applied the principle that acceptance of illegal gratification or corruption constitutes grave misconduct for the purposes of Rule 43(b).

The Court considered Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 73, on parity among co-delinquents.

The Court considered the principles of natural justice requiring meaningful consideration of the delinquent employee’s response to the inquiry report and second show-cause notice.

It further relied on Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, 2026 INSC 639, regarding the need to assess the seriousness of misconduct and the consequences of a disciplinary order affecting retiral benefits.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the competence of the Minister-in-charge, observing that the final punishment order had been passed after approval of the Chief Minister; therefore, the initiation of the proceeding was not rendered void on that ground.

It further held that the proceeding could continue after retirement under Rule 43(b), and that the allegation of demanding illegal gratification, if proved, amounted to grave misconduct, notwithstanding the absence of a finding of pecuniary loss to the State.

The Court found no procedural infirmity in the inquiry itself, noting that the petitioner had been given opportunities to participate and cross-examine the witnesses, but had not consistently availed herself of those opportunities.

However, the disciplinary authority failed to consider the petitioner’s detailed reply to the second show-cause notice before imposing the penalty.

Since such consideration was an essential part of a fair disciplinary decision, the punishment order was unsustainable, even though the underlying proceeding under Rule 43(b) was legally maintainable.

Nevertheless, it set aside Memo No. 3373 dated 28 July 2016, which withheld 90% of the petitioner’s pension, because the disciplinary authority had not considered her second show-cause reply dated 25 June 2015.

The matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after considering that reply, within three months of receipt or production of the judgment.

Payment of the petitioner’s pension and other retiral benefits was directed to abide by the fresh decision, which remained open to challenge in accordance with law.