Proportionate recovery is justified when an engineer fails to verify land ownership before proposing construction.

The petitioner, appointed as a Junior Engineer on 04 April 1988 and subsequently retired as an Assistant Engineer on 31 March 2020, was proceeded against departmentally in relation to the construction of a road over raiyati land under Scheme No. 39/03-04.

The State incurred liability of ₹53,32,823 towards compensation to the landholder pursuant to the judgment in L.P.A. No. 1674 of 2012.

A charge memo alleged that the petitioner had failed to verify whether the land was raiyati or government land and had thereby contributed to the financial loss suffered by the State.

Although the Enquiry Officer found the charges unproved, the department disagreed with the report, issued a second show-cause notice, and continued the proceeding after the petitioner’s retirement under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

By Memo No. 71 dated 09 January 2023, the disciplinary authority directed proportionate recovery of ₹17,77,607 from the petitioner. His appeal was rejected by Memo No. 1206 dated 16 May 2023.

Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders directing proportionate recovery of ₹17,77,607 from the petitioner were illegal because the petitioner was not solely responsible for the construction decision and the resulting financial loss?

Whether failure to accept the petitioner’s reliance on the order passed in L.P.A. No. 1674 of 2012 amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice?

Whether the departmental proceeding suffered from any procedural irregularity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction?

The Court applied Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, governing departmental disciplinary proceedings, and Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, under which proceedings may continue against a government servant after retirement for recovery from pensionary benefits in cases involving proved misconduct or pecuniary loss.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that the delinquent employee be given notice, an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, and an opportunity to respond to adverse findings or proposed punishment.

It also applied the principle that judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited where the procedure is fair, the findings are supported by the departmental record, and the punishment is not disproportionate or exorbitant.

The Court found that the petitioner had forwarded the proposal for construction and, as Junior Engineer, had a duty to verify whether the proposed road was situated on raiyati or government land.

Although the construction proposal was subsequently approved by higher authorities, the Court held that responsibility was not confined to the approving officials and that the petitioner’s conduct constituted the originating or “actual” wrong.

Since other officials were also responsible, the authorities imposed only proportionate recovery rather than recovering the entire loss of ₹53,32,823 from the petitioner.

The Court further held that the L.P.A. judgment had been considered in both the disciplinary and appellate orders; therefore, the petitioner could not establish denial of natural justice.

The record also showed that the petitioner was given opportunity before the Enquiry Officer and in response to the second show-cause notice, and no procedural lapse was demonstrated.

The limited recovery was consequently held neither exorbitant nor disproportionate.

It held that the disciplinary order dated 09 January 2023 and the appellate order dated 16 May 2023 disclosed no violation of natural justice, procedural irregularity, or disproportionate punishment.

The direction for proportionate recovery of ₹17,77,607 was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

The petitioner’s separate claims for gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension and 10% pension were not adjudicated on merits as they had already been satisfied during the pendency of the petition.