Unexplained prolonged disciplinary proceedings cannot justify indefinite withholding of retiral benefits.

The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Water Resources Department, retired on 30 April 2020 while a departmental proceeding initiated against him on 15 April 2019 was pending.

The proceeding concerned alleged illegal withdrawal of ₹48,000 and non-compliance with the Bihar Financial Rules.

The Enquiry Officer found that the withdrawal was made by an Account Clerk, not the petitioner, but also found non-compliance with certain financial rules.

The petitioner received 90% provisional pension; his remaining pension and other retiral benefits were withheld.

By the time of judgment, no final disciplinary order had been passed, although a proposal for a 5% pension reduction had been sent to the Bihar Public Service Commission in April 2026.

Whether the petitioner’s retiral dues could remain withheld because the departmental proceeding had not been concluded.

Whether the unexplained, prolonged pendency of the proceeding warranted a direction to conclude it within a fixed period, failing which it would stand closed.

Under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the State may withhold or withdraw pension where the statutory conditions for doing so are met; the provision does not, by itself, authorize withholding pension merely because a proceeding is pending.

Pension and gratuity are valuable rights and cannot be withheld without authority of law; Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2020 SC 1027, and D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, informed this principle.

The Court also applied P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, and the principles drawn from State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154: delay in disciplinary proceedings must be assessed on the facts, including its duration, explanation, responsibility for the delay, and prejudice to the employee.

It further relied on Akhilesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 9957 of 2023, and Bajrang Deo Narain Sinha v. State of Bihar, L.P.A. No. 124 of 1999, concerning the limits on withholding retiral dues under the Bihar Pension Rules.

The proceeding had remained inconclusive for nearly seven years, and the State’s affidavit did not explain the delay or attribute it to the petitioner.

The petitioner had meanwhile received only provisional pension, with other retiral dues withheld.

Although the Enquiry Officer’s report was not a final adjudication—particularly because the State relied on a separate finding of non-compliance with financial rules—the report did not establish the petitioner’s responsibility for the alleged withdrawal of ₹48,000, and no final order imposing punishment under Rule 43(b) had been made.

Applying the principles on prolonged disciplinary delay and the statutory limits on withholding pension, the Court found that continued pendency caused serious prejudice and required timely finalisation.

If they failed to do so, the proceeding would stand closed, and the respondents would then be required to pay the petitioner’s retiral dues, including pension, within a further two weeks.

The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.