PENSION DEDUCTION UNDER RULE 43(B) OF BIHAR PENSION RULES REQUIRES MANDATORY RECORDING OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT FINDINGS

The petitioner, while serving as a Constable (promoted to A.S.I.), was deployed at a vehicle check-post during the 2019 General Elections. Following a viral video allegedly showing police personnel collecting illegal gratifications, an FIR was registered, and the petitioner was placed under suspension.

Initially dismissed from service in 2021, the appellate authority set aside the order and directed a fresh enquiry under the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005.

In the fresh enquiry, the officer found no evidence of the petitioner receiving money but concluded there was a "dereliction of duty" regarding supervisory responsibilities.

Since the petitioner retired on 30.04.2023 during the pendency of the proceedings, the disciplinary authority converted the case under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and imposed a punishment of 10% pension deduction for five years.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority can impose punishment for a charge (negligence) not specifically framed in the original charge memo (illegal gratification).

2. Whether the mandatory jurisdictional requirements for invoking Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules were satisfied.

Rule 43(b) and Section 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which reserve the government’s right to withhold or withdraw pension only if a pensioner is found guilty of "grave misconduct" or having caused "pecuniary loss" to the Government by misconduct or negligence during service.

The principle that punishment must correlate to charges proved, while noting that supervisory negligence was broadly mentioned in the secondary charge memo.

The Court observed that while the charge memo did contain a broad allegation of non-performance of duty, the core issue was the conversion of the proceeding post-retirement.

For the State to lawfully deduct pension under Rule 43(b), there must be a specific finding of "grave misconduct" or "pecuniary loss".

Upon review of the impugned orders, the Court found that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority had recorded any finding that the petitioner’s negligence rose to the level of "grave misconduct" as defined by law.

Furthermore, the State counsel conceded that the mandatory ingredients for exercising power under Rule 43(b) were neither considered nor recorded in the order-sheet. Consequently, the order lacked the necessary legal foundation required to penalize a retired employee.

The Court quashed the punishment order dated 03.08.2023 and the appellate order dated 25.03.2025. The writ petition was allowed, effectively restoring the petitioner's full pension rights.