Jharkhand High Court
Braj Nandan Singh vs Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd on 18 August, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:24212
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1861 of 2014
.........
Braj Nandan Singh, s/o Late Gobind Singh presently
residing at Kusai Colony, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi. ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering
Building, H.E.C., Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagnathpur, Ranchi-834004 through its Chairman-
cum-Managing Director.
2. General Manager (H.R. & Administration),
Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering
Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-
Jagnathpur, Ranchi-834004.
3. The Joint Secretary-I, Jharkhand Urja Vikas
Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa,
P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagnathpur, Ranchi-834004.
4. Controller of Finance, Jharkhand, Jharkhand
Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Engineering Building, H.E.C.
Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagnathpur, Ranchi-
834004 Respondents. ..... Respondents
.........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
.......
For the Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv
Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Adv
Ms. Akanksha Priya, Adv
For the Res.-State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, Sr. S.C
Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, Adv
.........
C.A.V. ON 18/06/2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 18 /08/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ petition was initially preferred
challenging the order dated 30.09.2013, passed by the Joint
2025:JHHC:24212
Secretary-1, Jharkhand Urja Vikash Nigam Limited contained
in Annexure-6; whereby 10% pension of the petitioner was
withheld as per Rule-139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the
Appellate Authority decided the appeal of petitioner on
06.01.2016; whereby instead of 10%, 2% pension of the
petitioner was withheld. This was challenged by the petitioner
by filing I.A. No.765 of 2016 which was allowed on 13.07.2016.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner
sought guidelines by Letter No.353 dated 05.10.2005 for
lodging an F.I.R. with respect to disappearance of scraped
copper wire. It is alleged against the petitioner that it was the
duty of the petitioner to lodge the F.I.R. first and to inform the
Higher Officers. It is further alleged that the petitioner instead
of lodging the F.I.R., sought guideline to lodge the F.I.R. with
respect to such event.
4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he retired on
31.12.2006 from the post of Electrical Superintending
Engineer. His pension was sanctioned provisionally on
06.03.2007. When the pensionary benefits were not being
released, he filed a writ petition on 18.11.2008 which was
registered as W.P.(s) No.5530 of 2008. The said writ petition was
disposed of on 28.07.2011 with a direction to release the
admitted pensionary benefits.
2025:JHHC:24212
However, a show-cause notice was issued to this
petitioner on 29.08.2013 directing him to show-cause as to why
his pension to the extent of 10% be not withheld under Rule
139 (c) of Jharkhand Pension Rule for negligence and
dereliction of his duty which he committed on 05.10.2005.
This show-cause was replied by this petitioner on
11.09.2013. The impugned order of withholding of 10% pension
was thereafter passed on 30.09.2013. The writ petition was
filed on 31.03.2014 challenging the said order of withholding of
pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the writ petition,
the departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was decided
on 06.01.2016 and the pension to the extent of 2% was
withheld. In this view of the matter the penalty was reduced
from 10% to 2% withholding of pension.
5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are neither
sustainable in law; nor on facts. He refers Rule 43 (b) of the
Jharkhand Pension Rule to submit that the respondents have
no power and authority to withhold the pensionary benefits
after four years from the date of event, as the petitioner was a
retired employee.
He further submits that admittedly; the date of event
is 05.10.2005, which is very much reflected in the show cause
notice dated 29.08.2013 itself. The petitioner retired on
2025:JHHC:24212
31.12.2006 and in this view of the matter the petitioner could
have been proceeded at best by framing a charge till
05.10.2009 i.e., four years from the date of event; however, the
show cause notice itself was issued on 29.08.2013 and hence;
the same is time barred.
Mr. Tandon further refers Rule 139 (c) of the
Jharkhand Pension Rule which prescribes that the State
Government has power to revise pension, if the State is satisfied
that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly
satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on the
part of the petitioner while in service.
He further draws the attention of this Court and
submits that Rule 139 (c) further prescribes that such power
cannot be exercised after the expiry of 3 years from the date of
orders sanctioning the pension was first passed. He contended
that admittedly; the pension was first passed / sanctioned on
06.03.2007 but, the order impugned was passed on 30.09.2013
i.e. much beyond three years.
6. Ld. Counsel further argues that Rule 139 (c) cannot
be read in isolation. It has to be read with Rule 43 (b) of the
Jharkhand Pension Rule. Reliance in this context has been
placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Md. Idris Ansari1.
1995 Supp (3) SCC 56
2025:JHHC:24212
It has been contended that issue in question is no
more res integra and the same has been decided by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India which has been followed by this court
also in one or the other judgments.
7. Mr. O.P. Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondents, defends the orders passed by the Authorities
withholding the pension of the petitioner. He submits that the
10% pension of the petitioner was ordered to be deducted
permanently. This, however, was reconsidered by the higher
authority and the same was restricted to 2% only.
It is contended that petitioner has been paid
Rs.859683.00 against Gratuity vide Cheque No.028082 dated
03.07.2012. G.P.F. amount to the tune of Rs.1724254.00 was
also paid by Cheque No.011180 dated 18.01.2007. It is argued
by the Respondents that no interference is required by this
Court as the Authority itself thought it proper to reduce the
quantum of penalty.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
after perusing the materials on record; it appears that
admittedly; the Petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2006 and,
therefore, the proceeding against him was barred for an
event/misconduct which took place beyond four years from the
date the show cause notice was issued on 30.09.2013. In this
context reference may be made to the proviso to Rule 43 (b) of
2025:JHHC:24212
the Jharkhand Pension Rule. It stipulates that the
departmental proceeding can be initiated for a misconduct
against a retired employee but, such departmental proceeding if
not instituted while the government servant was on duty either
before retirement or during re-employment, the same shall not
be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than
four years before the institution of such proceeding.
This provision further stipulates that such
proceeding can be instituted only with the sanction of the State
Government. Not only this, it further stipulates that the final
order in such proceeding shall be passed only after consultation
of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Public Service Commission.
Therefore, if the event took place on 05.10.2005; the
Respondents could have proceeded against the Petitioner on or
before 05.10.2009 and not thereafter, as has been done in this
case.
9. Admittedly, this show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner only on 29.08.2013, which is placed at Annexure-4 of
the writ petition. The explanation under Rule 43 (b) further
stipulates that departmental proceeding shall be deemed to
have been instituted when the charges are framed against the
pensioner. In this case, I do not find that any charge memo was
ever issued against the petitioner. Instead, only a show cause
notice was issued and penalty order was imposed. This is
2025:JHHC:24212
absolutely in teeth of the provisions enshrined in Rule 43 (b) of
the Jharkhand Pension Rule.
10. It further transpires that the pension has been
withheld in garb of Rule139 (c) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule.
Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in isolation. If the misconduct is
alleged against the Petitioner, as is the case of the Respondents,
the procedure under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule
has to be adhered to. Admittedly, this has not been done in the
present case.
Moreover, the pension was first sanctioned on
06.03.2007 and, therefore, the authority could have revised the
same on or before 06.03.2010 and not thereafter. The pension
has been reduced by way of order on 30.09.2013. Therefore,
this is also beyond three years from the date of sanction of
pension. This is not permissible at all, in the facts of the
present case.
11. This court further finds force in the submission of
the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue
in question is no more res integra and the same has already
been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Md. Idris Ansari (supra).
The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Md.
Idris Ansari (supra) that Rule 139 (c) cannot be read in
isolation. It has to be read with Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand
2025:JHHC:24212
Pension Rules and a retired employee could not have been
proceeded after four years from the date of event. The case in
hand is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Md. Idris Ansari (supra). For brevity, paragraph-
10 is quoted hereinbelow:
"10. So far as the second type of cases are concerned the
proof of grave misconduct on the part of the government
servant concerned during his service tenure will have to be
culled out by the revisional authority from the departmental
proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken
place during his service tenure or from departmental
proceedings which may be initiated even after his retirement
in such type of cases. But such departmental proceedings will
have to comply with the requirements of Rule 43(b).
Consequently a retired government servant can be found
guilty of grave misconduct during his service career pursuant
to the departmental proceedings conducted against him even
after his retirement, but such proceedings could be initiated in
connection with only such misconduct which might have
taken place within 4 years of the initiation of such
departmental proceedings against him. In the present case,
the respondent retired on 31-1-1993 and the show-cause
notice was issued on the ground of grave misconduct on 27-9-
1993 and not on the ground that service record of the
pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued by
the State Government as sanctioning authority. It had,
therefore, to be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice therefore,
could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior
to 27-9-1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed
during the period from 26-9-1989 up to 31-1-1993 when the
respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct,
departmental proceedings could have been initiated against
the respondent under Rule 43(b). In such proceedings, if he
was found guilty of misconduct he could have been properly
proceeded against under Rule 139(a) and (b). On the facts of
the present case it must be held, agreeing with the High Court
that the notice dated 27-9-1993 invoking powers under Rule
139(a) and (b) was issued wholly on the ground of alleged
past misconduct and was not based on the ground that
service record of the respondent was not thoroughly
satisfactory. So far as that ground was concerned, on a
conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is no
escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct
was committed by the respondent prior to 4 years from the
date on which the show-cause notice dated 27-9-1993 was
issued, the appellant authority had no power to invoke Rule
139(a) and (b) against the respondent on the ground of proved
misconduct. Consequently, it had to be held that proceedings
under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent. The High Court
2025:JHHC:24212
was equally justified in quashing the final order dated 13-12-
1993 as there is no proof of such a misconduct. No question
of remanding the proceedings under Rule 139(a) and (b)
would survive as the alleged grave misconduct could not be
established in any departmental proceedings after the expiry
of four years from 1986-87, as such proceedings would be
clearly barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii). Consequently the
show-cause notice dated 27-9-1993 will have to be treated as
stillborn and ineffective from its inception. Such a notice
cannot be resorted to for supporting any fresh proceedings by
way of remand. For all these reasons no case is made for our
interference in this appeal. In the result appeal fails and is
dismissed. There is no order as to costs."
12. In the light of what has been held above, the
impugned orders dated 30.09.2013 and 06.01.2016
(Annexures-6 & 11 respectively) deserve to be, and, is hereby,
quashed and set aside.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. The
Respondents are directed to refund the amount withheld, if
any, within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order. However, there shall
be no order as to cost.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Amardeep/
A.F.R
