Pension deduction under Rule 43(b) requires proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.

The petitioner, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, was proceeded against departmentally under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 on two charges: failure to take appropriate action in Katihar Railway P.S. Case No. 57 of 2004 and delayed joining at Police Headquarters, Patna after his transfer from Katihar.

During the proceeding, the petitioner superannuated on 28 February 2011, and the proceeding was continued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

The Conducting Officer found both charges unproved, but the disciplinary authority disagreed and imposed a permanent deduction of 20% from the petitioner’s pension.

The petitioner challenged the punishment in CWJC No. 16208 of 2012. By judgment dated 19 October 2023, the High Court set aside the punishment and remanded the matter for issuance of a detailed disagreement notice and for passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Upon reconsideration, the disciplinary authority accepted the Conducting Officer’s findings regarding the principal charge but held that the petitioner had delayed joining at Patna, and again imposed deduction of 20% of his pension through Memo No. 2935 dated 13 March 2024.

The petitioner’s review was rejected by a cryptic order dated 25 September 2024.

1. Whether the petitioner’s joining at Police Headquarters, Patna on 3 September 2004 constituted delayed or unauthorised compliance with the transfer order dated 7 August 2004, considering the joining time permissible under Rule 255 of the Bihar Service Code?

2. Whether deduction of 20% of the petitioner’s pension was legally sustainable under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 when the only surviving finding concerned delayed joining and there was no finding of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the Government?

3. Whether the review order dated 25 September 2024 was invalid for being cryptic and unsupported by reasons?

The Court applied Rule 255 of the Bihar Service Code, which permits a Government servant transferred from one station to another joining time subject to a maximum of 30 days, including preparation and journey time.

It further applied Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, under which pension may be withheld or withdrawn only where the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or judicial proceedings of grave misconduct, or has caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence.

The Court also applied the principle that an administrative or quasi-judicial order, particularly a review order, must disclose reasons and be a reasoned and speaking order.

The earlier judgment in CWJC No. 16208 of 2012 additionally required the disciplinary authority to provide specific reasons for disagreeing with the Conducting Officer and to consider the petitioner’s defence.

The Court found that the petitioner joined at Patna on 3 September 2004, within 30 days of the transfer notification dated 7 August 2004. Consequently, the allegation of inordinate or impermissible delay was inconsistent with the joining period recognised under Rule 255 of the Bihar Service Code.

Having accepted the Conducting Officer’s findings on the principal charge, the disciplinary authority could not sustain the pension penalty merely on the basis of the alleged delayed joining.

More importantly, even assuming delayed joining, the requirements of Rule 43(b) were not satisfied because the record disclosed neither grave misconduct nor pecuniary loss caused to the Government.

The Court also held that the review authority’s one-line rejection, based only on the fact that the punishment had been imposed, failed to provide reasons and was therefore legally unsustainable.

It held that the petitioner had joined within the permissible period under Rule 255 and that the conditions for invoking Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 were not established.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, was directed to ensure payment of all service dues to the petitioner within three months from communication of the judgment.