Rule 43(b) proceedings instituted over four years after the relevant event are time-barred.

The petitioner, a retired government employee, challenged a departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, by charge memo dated 31 August 2021.

The alleged events covered the period from 16 August 2014 to 6 July 2017.

During the proceeding, 10% of his pension was forfeited for ten years by order dated 19 October 2022.

The petitioner sought to quash both orders, contending that the proceeding was time-barred; he also sought payment of retirement dues and other amounts.

During the hearing, he stated that his claim for admitted leave encashment had been resolved.

The State argued that, because the proceeding had concluded, the petitioner should pursue an appeal under the applicable service rules.

Whether the departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 43(b) was barred by the rule’s four-year limitation, given the dates of the alleged events and the charge memo.

Whether the charge memo and the consequential pension-forfeiture order could stand once the proceeding was found time-barred.

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, permits the State to withhold or withdraw pension, or recover pecuniary loss, where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence.

Under proviso (a)(ii), where departmental proceedings were not instituted while the government servant was in service or on re-employment, they must concern an event that occurred not more than four years before institution of the proceedings.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Urmila Sharma v. State of Bihar & Ors., which discussed the interpretation of “event” under Rule 43(b), referring to Mohd. Idris Ansari and Sharda Prasad Sinha & Ors.

The Court identified the alleged events as occurring between 16 August 2014 and 6 July 2017, while the charge memo was issued on 31 August 2021.

It held that more than four years had elapsed before institution of the proceeding, contrary to proviso (a)(ii) to Rule 43(b).

Because the charge memo was time-barred, the Court concluded that the proceeding founded on it, including the subsequent pension-forfeiture order, could not be sustained.

The Court did not separately determine the State’s alternative-remedy objection.

It directed the respondent authorities to calculate the petitioner’s entire arrears and ensure payment, if any, within three months of production of the order.