### Punishment Based on Suspicion and Presumption Without Proof of Grave Misconduct Is Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, while serving as a Marketing Officer in 2015, led a raid resulting in the seizure of a large quantity of black-marketed food grains and the lodging of an FIR.

Despite this, the Department initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him for alleged dereliction of duty and lack of monitoring.

The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all charges; however, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the report and imposed a punishment.

This punishment was previously set aside by the High Court in CWJC No. 5113 of 2017 with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Following the petitioner’s retirement on 31.05.2018, the Department converted the proceeding into one under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, issued a disagreement note, and subsequently passed an order on 24.12.2020 imposing a 5% pension cut for five years.

1. Whether the conversion of disciplinary proceedings into Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules and the subsequent punishment was legally sustainable when based on suspicion rather than evidence of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss.

2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority followed the mandatory procedure for recording disagreement with an enquiry report.

The court applied Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which empowers the government to withhold pension only if the pensioner is found guilty of "grave misconduct" or having caused "pecuniary loss".

It relied on *Raj Bahadur Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar* [2009 (3) PLJR 855], emphasizing that pension deductions cause irreparable injury to retirees.

Furthermore, the court applied the principle from *Lal Bahadur Singh v. The State of Bihar* [2017 (4) PLJR 131], which establishes that "suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be a ground to punish an employee".

This principle was further supported by *Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank*, asserting that findings in a departmental inquiry must be based on evidence, not conjecture.

The court found that the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the Enquiry Officer’s report (which had exonerated the petitioner) was rooted entirely in presumption and suspicion rather than concrete evidence.

Specifically, the authority assumed that because an FIR was registered, the petitioner must have been in connivance with offenders, ignoring the fact that the petitioner himself was the informant who led the raid.

The court noted a procedural lapse where the authority failed to prove "grave misconduct" or "pecuniary loss," which are statutory prerequisites for invoking Rule 43(B).

Furthermore, the authority relied on an analysis report from the ADM (Supply) that had already been discounted by the Enquiry Officer because it erroneously linked the petitioner to a location (Masaurhi) where he was never posted.

Consequently, the court determined that the reasoning for disagreement was perverse and lacked evidentiary support.

It held that the punishment was unsustainable as it was based on mere suspicion and lacked the necessary findings of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss required under Rule 43(B).

The Respondents were directed to refund the 5% deducted pension amount within four months and restore the petitioner’s full pension (100%) effective from 01.03.2026.

If the refund is not processed within the stipulated period, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum.