Post-retirement departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b) are barred for events older than four years.

The petitioner, a police officer appointed as a Constable in 1976 and subsequently promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹5,000 in 2006 while posted at Ganga Bridge Police Station, Vaishali.

A departmental proceeding resulted in his dismissal from service in 2011. His appeal and memorial were rejected.

In an earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 10998 of 2013, the Patna High Court quashed the dismissal, appellate and memorial orders for violation of natural justice and procedural fairness, while granting liberty to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

The petitioner retired on 28 February 2017. Thereafter, the authorities decided in September–October 2020 to initiate proceedings against him under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

A charge memo was framed on 26 November 2020 concerning the 2006 incident.

The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, and after successive show-cause notices, the Inspector General, Tirhut Range, ordered withholding of 50% of his pension for five years on 12 October 2021.

The consequential orders of the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, and the rejection of his appeal were passed in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

Whether a departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, initiated by framing charges on 26 November 2020 in respect of an event occurring in 2006, was barred by the requirement that the event must have occurred within four years before institution of the proceeding?

Whether the authorities were required to conduct the proceeding under Rule 43(b), proviso (a)(iii), in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings for dismissal from service?

The Court applied Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, under which the State may withhold or withdraw pension, or recover pecuniary loss, if a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or causes pecuniary loss through misconduct or negligence during service.

Under proviso (a), where departmental proceedings are not instituted while the government servant is in service, they require State Government sanction, must relate to an event occurring not more than four years before institution, and must be conducted according to the procedure applicable to proceedings resulting in dismissal from service.

The explanation to Rule 43(b) provides that departmental proceedings are deemed to have been instituted when the charge is framed.

The Court also applied the principle that proceedings must be conducted in accordance with law and procedural fairness, consistent with the earlier judgment which had quashed the original disciplinary orders for violation of natural justice.

The Court held that the relevant date for determining institution of the proceeding was 26 November 2020, when the charge was framed, and not the earlier administrative communications of September or October 2020.

Since the alleged misconduct occurred in 2006, the proceeding was initiated approximately fourteen years after the event and well beyond the four-year period prescribed by Rule 43(b), proviso (a)(ii).

Although the earlier writ judgment permitted the authorities to proceed afresh, that liberty was expressly subject to compliance with procedural fairness and the applicable law; it did not authorise initiation of a proceeding contrary to Rule 43(b).

Consequently, the authorities’ decision to proceed under Rule 43(b) after the petitioner’s retirement could not cure the statutory limitation defect.

The Court therefore found it unnecessary to sustain the punishment on the merits or examine the evidentiary objections in detail.

The orders dated 12 October 2021, 7 June 2022, 16 September 2022 and 6 July 2023, imposing and affirming withholding of 50% of the petitioner’s pension for five years, were quashed.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.