Post-retirement proceedings under Rule 43(b) commence on service and are barred for misconduct over four years old.

The petitioner, a Bihar Administrative Service officer, retired on 31 December 2014.

The State initiated disciplinary proceedings concerning alleged irregularities in the installation of high-mast lights during his tenure as DDC-cum-CEO, DRDA, Araria, from 2006 to 2009.

Although the resolution was dated 29 December 2014, the charge memo was dispatched on 9 January 2015 and served on him on 10 January 2015.

The proceedings were treated as proceedings under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, and ultimately resulted in a 75% deduction from his pension.

The petitioner challenged the initiation, inquiry, punishment and rejection of his review

1. Whether the departmental proceeding, instituted after the petitioner’s retirement, was barred by the four-year limitation in the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules

2. Whether the inquiry and punishment complied with the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 and the requirements of natural justice, including the rules governing proof of charges and consideration of the petitioner’s defence

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules permits pension to be withheld or withdrawn where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or responsible for pecuniary loss, but its proviso bars post-retirement proceedings concerning events more than four years before institution; under its Explanation, proceedings are deemed instituted when the charges are issued to the pensioner

In State of Bihar v. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56, the Supreme Court held that the four-year restriction applies to post-retirement departmental proceedings under Rule 43(b).

Rule 17(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 requires the disciplinary authority to frame, or cause to be framed, definite articles of charge and supporting particulars; Rule 18(4) requires consideration of the employee’s representation before further action.

Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570, requires findings in a departmental inquiry to rest on evidence rather than suspicion or unproved material.

Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, requires a fair, open-minded decision and reasoned consideration of the defence; Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, addresses the employee’s opportunity to respond to the inquiry findings

The Court examined the original records and found no proof that the charge memo had been served before retirement.

The dispatch and tracking records showed service only on 10 January 2015, so the proceeding was instituted after retirement and was governed by Rule 43(b).

Because the alleged events occurred in 2006–2009, the proceeding fell outside the four-year limit and was barred

The Court also found that the inquiry relied on an ex parte District Magistrate’s report that was not supplied to the petitioner, that additional charges had been introduced without a formal decision of the disciplinary authority, and that the petitioner’s written defence and supporting documents were not meaningfully considered.

In the Court’s view, these defects violated the applicable rules and natural justice, and left the findings and punishment unsupported by a procedurally fair inquiry

It declined to remand the matter for a fresh inquiry, relying on the limitation bar and the fundamental defects identified in the proceedings

The State was directed to restore the petitioner’s full pension and release withheld pensionary benefits, including arrears and gratuity, with 6% statutory interest within eight weeks.

The Court also directed the State to conduct an internal inquiry into the administrative delay and procedural lapses and to consider appropriate action against responsible officials