[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Nabin Narayan on 17 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L. P. A. No. 358 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Water Resource
Department, Ranchi
2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Chief Engineer, Waterways Divisions, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh
5. The Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh
6. The Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh ..... Appellants
Versus
1. Nabin Narayan
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi ..... Respondents
With
L. P. A. No. 719 of 2025
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Water Resource
Department, Ranchi
2. The Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resource Department, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The Chief Engineer, Waterways Divisions, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh
5. The Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh
6. The Executive Engineer, Waterways Division, Water Resource Department,
Hazaribagh ..... Appellants
Versus
1. Ramchandra Rajak
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi ..... Respondents
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants: Mr. Anish Kumar Mishra, A.C to Sr. S.C-I
Mr. Shahbaj Akhtar, A.C to A.A.G-III
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Shrestha, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 10.03.2026 Pronounced on 17.03.2026
Per: Rajesh Shankar, J
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
I.A No. 1797 of 2025 (in L.P.A No. 358 of 2025) has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 145 days occurred
in filing the present appeal.
2. I.A No. 6797 of 2025 (in L.P.A No. 719 of 2025) has been filed for
condonation of delay of 93 days occurred in filing the present appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being satisfied
with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory applications, the said delay
occurred in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned.
4. The present interlocutory applications are accordingly disposed of.
Facts of the cases
5. L.P.A No. 358 of 2025 is directed against the judgment/order dated
20.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4959 of 2022
whereby the order as contained in Memo No. 4250 dated 08.08.2022 issued by
the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand
(the appellant No.2) imposing penalty of 5% deduction from the pension of the
respondent/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the R1) for a period of two
years, has been quashed observing that the initiation of departmental
proceeding under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules, 2000') can be exercised, if the entire service carrier of
an employee has been found to be unsatisfactory.
6. L.P.A No. 719 of 2025 is directed against the judgment/order dated
20.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4967 of 2022
whereby the order as contained in Memo No. 4235 dated 05.08.2022 issued
under the signature of the appellant No.2 imposing penalty of 5% deduction
from the pension of the respondent/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as
the R2) for a period of two years, has been quashed on the same reasons as
mentioned hereinabove.
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
7. The R1 was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer,
Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar in the light of order as contained
in Memo No. 399 dated 25.01.1979. He retired from the post of Engineer-in-
Chief-I, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand on
30.04.2017 and his pension was also approved by the Office of the Principal
Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Ranchi.
8. Subsequently, an explanation was sought from R1 vide letter No. 2993
dated 14.07.2018 issued under the signature of Special Secretary to the
Government, Water Resources Department with respect to the alleged
irregularities committed in restoration works of three schemes pertaining to
disposal of desilting soil accumulated after Canal Bed Clearance during his
period of posting as Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Hazaribagh in
the year 2014-15.
9. The R1 replied the said letter by attaching the copy of charge report
wherein it was stated that he had taken the additional charge of Superintending
Engineer, Water Ways Circle, Hazaribagh from his predecessor-in-office w.e.f
31.01.2015 and was relieved on 14.10.2016 (afternoon).
10. However, a second show cause notice was served on him vide letter No.
2712 dated 28.06.2021 issued under the signature of the appellant No.2 stating
that his reply to the earlier show cause notice was not accepted and in the light
of Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000, it was proposed to award
him punishment of deduction of 5% of his pension for a period of two years.
11. Finally, the R1 was awarded punishment of deduction of 5% of his
pension for a period of two years vide the order as contained in Memo No. 4250
dated 08.08.2022 issued under the signature of the appellant No.2.
12. Aggrieved thereby, the R1 filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4959 of
2022 which was allowed vide impugned order dated 20.08.2024 quashing the
order as contained in Memo No. 4250 dated 08.08.2022.
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
13. The R2 was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer, Water
Resources Department, Government of Bihar vide Memo No. 2323 dated
20.06.1987 and he retired from service on 31.01.2018 from the post of Chief
Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh.
14. An explanation was sought from the R2 vide letter No. 2992 dated
14.07.2018 issued under the signature of Special Secretary to the Government
whereby he was directed to submit reply on the alleged irregularities committed
by him in the restoration works of three schemes pertaining to disposal of
desilted soil during his period of posting as Chief Engineer, Waterways Division,
Hazaribagh in the year 2014-15. In the meantime, his pension was approved in
the light of the letter as contained in Memo No. 2403 dated 07.08.2018 issued
under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Water Resources
Department, Government of Jharkhand.
15. The second show cause notice was served on the R2 vide letter No. 2711
dated 28.06.2021 issued under the signature of the appellant No.2 stating that
his reply to the earlier show cause notice was not accepted and in the light of
the Rule 139 of the Rules, 2000, it was proposed to award him punishment of
5% deduction from his pension for a period of two years.
16. Finally, the R2 was awarded punishment of deduction of 5% of his
pension for a period of two years vide the order as contained in Memo No. 4235
dated 05.08.2022 issued under the signature of the appellant No.2.
17. Aggrieved thereby, the R2 filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4967 of
2022 which was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 20.08.2024 quashing
the order as contained in Memo No. 4235 dated 05.08.2022 passed by the
appellant No.2.
Argument on behalf of the appellants
18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge
has failed to appreciate the fact that in view of the report submitted by
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
the departmental flying squad, the allegation made against the respondents
pertained to excess/irregular payment in disposal of desilted soil during the
financial year 2014-15 when they were posted as Superintending Engineer,
Waterways Circle, Hazaribagh and Chief Engineer, Water Ways Division,
Hazaribagh respectively.
19. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also failed to
appreciate that though the respondents denied the charges levelled against
them, they did not specifically mention the work done by them and thus a
detail report was sought from the then Executive Engineer of the concerned
department with respect to responsibility undertaken and work done by different
Engineers in the scheme in question. The report submitted by the Executive
Engineer suggested that the respondents were responsible for granting
sanction of disposal plan of desilted soil at higher rate.
20. It is also contended that the replies filed by the respondents were duly
considered by the appellant No.2 and it was found that the excess payment at
higher rate was made pursuant to technical sanction of the disposal plan of
desilted soil with respect to the schemes in question and the R1 and R2 being
part of the sanction process were held responsible as per the report of the
departmental flying squad. On perusal of the record relating to the schemes in
question, it was further found that the said respondents were also in the
channel of Engineers, who had granted approval to such sanction of the
schemes in question wherein a higher rate than applicable was approved by
them resulting in excess and irregular payment to the contractors causing loss
to the government exchequer.
21. It is further submitted that the appellant No.2, after having carefully
considered the entire record of the case, came to a conclusion that the defence
taken by the respondents was not acceptable and their involvement in excess
payment was found proved. As such, the order of punishment of deduction of
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
5% pension for a period of two years was imposed upon the respondents after
taking due approval of the competent authority.
22. It is finally argued that the learned Single Judge while passing
the impugned judgment, has failed to appreciate that punishment of deduction
from pension of the respondents was imposed by the appellant No.2 after due
compliance of the provisions of law particularly by issuing show cause notices to
them and the punishment was also proportionate to the charges levelled against
them. Further, the principles of natural justice were not violated by any of the
authorities while conducting the aforesaid proceedings against the respondents,
rather they were provided ample opportunities to submit their replies on
the allegations levelled against them, which were duly availed by them.
23. On the contrary, learned counsel for the R1 & R2 while putting much
reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case
of Swetabh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine Jhar 2256, submits that initiation of departmental proceeding under
Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 can be exercised after
retirement, if the entire service career of concerned government servant has
been found to be unsatisfactory and his service cannot be declared to be
unsatisfactory for guilt of only one misdemeanour.
24. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed
the orders of deduction from the respondents' pension by relying on the
judgment of Swetabh Kumar (Supra) case and as such the impugned order
may not be interfered by this Court.
25. It is also submitted that the orders of deduction from pension of the
respondents were passed in a mechanical manner without initiating full-fledged
departmental proceedings to prove the grave misconduct on their part during
their service tenure.
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
Finding of the Court
26. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials
available on record.
27. Before delving into the merit of the rival contentions of the parties, it
would be appropriate to refer herein Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Jharkhand
Pension Rules, 2000 which read as under:-
"43(b) The State government further reserve to
themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for
a specified period, and the right of ordering the
recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner
is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to
have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have
caused pecuniary loss to government by misconduct
or negligence, during his service including service
rendered on re-employment after retirement:
Provided that-
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted
while the government servant was on duty either
before retirement or during re-employment.
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
State Government.
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place
not more than four years before the institution of
such proceeding;
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such
place or places as the State Government may direct
and in accordance with the procedure applicable to
proceedings on which an order of dismissal from
service may be made."
(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was on duty either before
retirement or during reemployment, shall have been
instituted in accordance with subclause (ii) of clause
(a); and
(c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be
consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation.
For the purposes of the rule (a) departmental
proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted
when the charges framed, against the pensioner are
issued to him or, if the Government servant has been
placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such
date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to
have been instituted:-
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on
which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is
submitted, to a criminal court; and
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on
which the complaint is presented, or as the case may
be, an application is made to a civil Court."
"139. (a) The full pension admissible under the rules
is not to be given as a matter of course, or unless the
service rendered has been really approved.
(b) If the service has not been thoroughly
satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension
should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks
proper.
(c) The State Government reserve to themselves the
powers of revising an order relating to pension passed
by subordinate authorities under their control, if they
are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not
thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of
grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such
power shall, however, be exercised without giving the
pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause against the action proposed to be
taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power
shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from
the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first
passed."
28. On perusal of the Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 2000, it would emerge that the
State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of
it when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a
departmental proceeding or a judicial proceeding. The State Government also
reserves the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part
of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if such loss is caused by
misconduct or negligence committed during service tenure of the pensioner
including service rendered by him on re-employment after retirement.
29. The proviso of Rule 43(b) deals with certain conditions for initiation of
departmental proceedings and the period of limitation within which such
proceedings can be initiated. It provides that if departmental proceeding was
not instituted while the government servant was on duty either before
retirement or during re-employment, the same shall be instituted only with the
sanction of the State Government that too, for an event which took place not
more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. It further
provides that such proceedings shall be conducted by the enquiry officer in
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
accordance with the procedure applicable to the proceedings on which an order
of dismissal from service may be made. It also adds that departmental
proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed
against the concerned pensioner are issued to him or, if the government servant
has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date.
30. Rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000 empowers the State Government to revise
an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their
control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly
satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in
service. However, before exercising such power, the pensioner should be given
a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be
taken in regard to his pension. The period of limitation for exercising such
power is fixed as three years from the date of passing the order of sanctioning
the pension.
31. Thus, there are two circumstances under which the State Government is
empowered to reduce the pension of a pensioner. The first circumstance is that
when the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory and the
second is that there is a proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service.
32. The words "thoroughly satisfactory" under the first circumstance makes it
mandatory that before passing the order of deduction of pension of a pensioner,
the State Government should take into consideration the entire service record of
the pensioner and not a particular instance of committing irregularity. So far as
the order of deduction of pension on the ground of proved grave misconduct is
concerned, the State Government has to satisfy itself that in departmental or
judicial proceeding, it has been proved that the pensioner is guilty of grave
misconduct. Mere allegation of irregularity is not sufficient to order deduction of
pension in exercise of power under Rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000.
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
33. It would be profitable to refer herein the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Idris
Ansari, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 wherein it has been held that with
respect to the second type of cases, the proof of grave misconduct on the part
of the concerned government servant 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 the departmental proceedings, which may be initiated even after his
retirement, but such departmental proceedings will have to comply with the
requirements of Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 2000.
34. Reverting back to the present case. The R1 retired from the post of
Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand on
30.04.2017 and the R2 retired on 31.01.2018 from the post of Chief Engineer,
Water Resources Department, Hazaribagh. The pensions of the said
respondents were also approved by the competent authority. Moreover, no
departmental proceedings were initiated against them during their entire service
career.
35. However, after their retirement, the appellant No.2 passed the orders of
reduction of 5% of their pension for a period of two years in exercise of the
power conferred under Rule 139 of the Rules, 2000 by alleging irregularities
committed by them in re-establishment works under three schemes for the
financial year 2014-15. By citing a particular instance of irregularity, the orders
of reduction of pension of the respondents were passed. It was however not
alleged against them that their services were thoroughly unsatisfactory.
36. We are of the view that by looking to a single instance of irregularity, the
authority cannot form an opinion that the service of an employee was
thoroughly unsatisfactory so as to exercise the power under Rule 139(c) of the
Rules, 2000, rather the authority has to examine the entire service record of
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
such employee. Thus, the first circumstance for taking action against the said
respondents reducing their pensions is not fulfilled in the present case.
37. Now, the question before this Court is as to whether the charges of grave
misconduct has been proved against the said respondents so as to reduce their
pension by the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Rule
139(c) of the Rules, 2000.
38. It is evident from the record that for the allegation of irregularities
committed by the said respondents during the year 2014-15, the explanations
were called from them after their retirement and on receiving their replies, the
second show cause notices under Rule 139 of the Rules, 2000 were issued to
them. Thereafter, the orders of reduction of pension were passed. Thus, neither
full-fledged departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondents by
issuing charge memos nor the criminal proceedings were set in motion against
them. Moreover, neither proper inquiry for the alleged irregularities was
conducted by appointing inquiry officer(s) nor the respondents were afforded
due opportunity of hearing in a full-fledged enquiry proceeding. Thus, the
charge of grave misconduct cannot be said to be proved against the
respondents, which is a pre-condition for exercise of power under Rule 139(c) of
the Rules, 2000 by the State Government.
39. We are of the view that mere allegation of irregularities is not sufficient
to exercise the power conferred under Rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000, rather
the same has to be proved in a departmental proceeding or a criminal
proceeding by giving due opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. It is a
settled law that where a power is conferred to do a certain thing in a certain
way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.
40. It has specifically been provided under Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 2000 that
the order of withholding or withdrawing pension of a pensioner has to be
passed by the authority in accordance with the procedure applicable to the
2026:JHHC:7156-DB
proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. We are
of the considered view that the same condition is also applicable for reduction of
pension of a pensioner in exercise of power under Rule 139(c) of the Rules,
2000.
41. From the aforesaid facts, it transpires that condition precedent for
exercising power under Rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000 is not fulfilled in the
present cases and as such the orders deducting 5% pension of the respondents
were rightly quashed by the learned Single Judge, which need no interference
by this Court.
42. Both these appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
43. Consequently, all the pending interlocutory applications also stand
dismissed.
(M. S. SONAK, C.J)
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
March 17, 2026
Satish/A.F.R
Uploaded on 17.03.2026
