[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Brajeshwar Singh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.102 of 2025
-----
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department (Palamau
Anchal), Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda,
Ranchi.
5. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chas,
Bokaro.
6. The Additional Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
.......... Appellants.
-Versus-
Brajeshwar Singh, S/o Late Ugrah Singh, resident of Shivpuri
Colony, Jodhadih More, Chas, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand.
.......... Respondent.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Appellants : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, AC to Sr. SC-I
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate
Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
-----
Reserved on 10.03.2026 Pronounced on 19.03.2026
Per: Rajesh Shankar, J.
I.A. No.1151 of 2025:
1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 50 days in
filing the present appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on being
satisfied with the reasons set out in the present interlocutory
application, the said delay in filing the present appeal is hereby
condoned.
3. I.A. No.1151 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
L.P.A. No.102 of 2025:
4. The present appeal has been filed against the order/judgment
dated 24.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of W.P.(S) No. 6757 of 2027 whereby the order
as contained in Memo No. 3912 dated 12.09.2017 issued under
the signature of the Under Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Jharkhand, imposing punishment of
15% deduction from the pension of the writ
petitioner/respondent, namely, Brajeshwar Singh for a period of
five years, has been quashed.
Facts of the Case
5. The writ petitioner/respondent had joined the service as Junior
Engineer in the year 1979 under the Water Resources
Department, Government of Bihar and after bifurcation, his cadre
was allocated to Water Resources Department, Government of
Jharkhand. He was subsequently transferred to Minor Irrigation
Division, Bokaro, where he joined as Junior Engineer at Jaridih
Sub-division on 05.10.2002.
6. A complaint was lodged by the former Transport Minister,
Government of Jharkhand through a letter written to Water
Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand alleging
therein that financial irregularities were made by the then
Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Bokaro in
connivance with Assistant Engineer and other Junior Engineers of
the said division as well as the contractor, namely, M/s. Jai
Mahalakshmi Construction, Bokaro with respect to various
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
approved Microlift schemes for different blocks of Bokaro district
for the year 2003-04.
7. The said allegation was enquired separately by the Departmental
Flying Squad Team and the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
Water Resources Department, Ranchi and the enquiry report
submitted by them revealed that the entire expenditure incurred
in construction works of the said schemes for the purpose of
irrigation had failed to produce the expected results.
8. The petitioner was issued show cause notice vide Memo No. 3669
dated 17.07.2015 which was replied by him on 08.08.2015.
Subsequently, the petitioner retired from service on 31.12.2016.
Thereafter, he was issued second show cause notice under rule
139 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, 2000 vide letter no.2079 dated
02.05.2017 which was also replied by him vide letter dated
14.05.2017. Finally, an order of punishment was passed, as
contained in memo no.3912 dated 12.09.2017 issued under the
signature of the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand, imposing penalty of 15% deduction in
pension of the writ petitioner for a period of five years.
9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of punishment, the
respondent/writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S)
No.6757 of 2017 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge
vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2024 quashing
the order of punishment as contained in memo no.3912 dated
12.09.2017.
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
observation made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that
no departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ
petitioner by serving a charge sheet is not sustainable in view of
the fact that on the basis of enquiry report of flying squad team
as well as the enquiry report of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation,
Ranchi, the charges were framed against the erring officials
including the petitioner for being involved in execution of the
projects pertaining to various Microlift schemes within Bokaro
district.
11. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate that the departmental proceeding was initiated against
the writ petitioner under rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification
Control and Appeal) Rule 1930 vide order as contained in Memo
No.412 dated 28.01.2016 prior to the date of his retirement i.e.
on 31.12.2016.
12. It is also contended that the imposition of punishment against the
writ petitioner was based on the fact that he was found guilty of
financial embezzlement as well as irregular execution of the
approved Microlift schemes under different blocks of Minor
Irrigation Division, Bokaro.
13. It is further urged that the appellants have taken action against
the writ petitioner under rule 139 of the Rules, 2000 as his service
was not thoroughly satisfactory.
14. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ
petitioner submits that the punishment of 15% deduction from
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
the petitioner's payable pension was passed without initiating a
departmental proceeding and without affording him due
opportunity of hearing.
15. It is further submitted that the entire issue relates to the year
2003-04 and the proceeding was initiated at the fag end of
service of the writ petitioner which is contrary to the provision of
rule 43(b) of the Rules, 2000. The period of limitation as
prescribed in rule 43(b) is also applicable for initiation of
proceeding under rule 139(b) of Rules, 2000.
16. It is also submitted that the punishment order with respect to the
deduction of pension of the writ petitioner was passed in a
mechanical manner without initiating full-fledged departmental
proceeding so as to prove the grave misconduct, if any, on his
part during the service tenure.
17. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent puts
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered
in the case of State of Bihar and Others Vs. Mohammad
Idrish, reported in 1996 Suppl. (3) SCC 56.
Findings of the Court
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
19. Before delving into the merit of the contentions of the parties, it
would be appropriate to refer the provisions of rule 43(b) and rule
139 of the 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
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
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:-
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
(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
(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."
20. On perusal of the rule 43(b) of 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 has also the right to
recover from pension of the concerned pensioner the whole or
part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if such loss
is caused to the government by misconduct or negligence during
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
his service tenure including the service rendered by him on re-
employment after retirement.
21. The proviso of rule 43(b) deals with certain pre-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
proceedings. It further provides that such proceeding shall be
conducted by the enquiry officer in 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 pensioner are issued to him
or, if the Government servant has been placed under suspension
from an earlier date, on such date.
22. Rule 139 (c) of the Rules, 2000 empowers the State Government
to revise an order relating to pension passed by the 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 with regard to his pension. The
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
period of limitation for exercising such power is fixed as three
years from the date of the order of sanctioning of the pension.
23. Thus, following are the two conditions under which the State
Government is empowered to reduce the pension of a pensioner:-
(i) If the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly
satisfactory, or
(ii) There is a proof of grave misconduct on his part while in
service.
24. The words "thoroughly satisfactory" under the first condition
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.
25. So far as the order of deduction of pension on the ground of grave
misconduct, 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.
26. We have perused the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd.
Idris Ansari, reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56, as has been
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent. In the said
case, 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
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
called 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, but such
departmental proceedings will have to comply with the
requirements of Rule 43(b) of the Rules, 2000.
27. Now, the question before this court is as to whether any of the
two conditions mentioned in rule 139(c) of the Rules, 2000 was
available in the present case so as to pass the order of deduction
of pension of the writ petitioner.
28. Reverting back to the present case, the writ petitioner was asked
to submit explanation vide letter no.3669 dated 17.07.2015
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department,
Government of Jharkhand calling upon him as to why a
departmental proceeding be not initiated against him relating to
the alleged irregularities reflected from the enquiry report of the
Departmental Flying Squad.
29. The writ petitioner/respondent replied the said show cause notice
on 08.08.2015, denying all the allegations levelled against him.
Subsequently, he retired from service on 31.12.2016. The second
show cause notice dated 02.05.2017 was then issued to him
under rule 139 of the Rules, 2000 for the proposed punishment
of 15% deduction from his pension for a period of five years. The
said second show cause notice was also replied by him.
Thereafter, 15% of his payable pension was reduced for a period
of five years vide order as contained in memo no.3912 dated
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
12.09.2017 issued under the signature of the Under Secretary,
Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand alleging
inter alia that for the work relating to Microlift Schemes for the
year 2003-04, he had marked evaluation of the concerned works
in the measurement book without inspecting the same. Thus, by
citing a particular instance of irregularity, the order of deduction
of pension of the writ petitioner/respondent was passed. It was,
however, not alleged against him that his service tenure was
thoroughly unsatisfactory.
30. 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 such
employee. Thus, the first condition for taking action against the
respondent for deduction of his pension is not fulfilled in the
present case.
31. It is further evident from the record that for the allegation of
irregularities committed during the year 2003-04, the
explanations were called from the writ petitioner/respondent. On
receipt of his reply, the second show cause notice under rule 139
of Rules, 2000 was issued to him after his retirement and the
order of deduction for a period of five years from his pension was
passed. Thus, neither a full-fledged departmental proceeding was
initiated against the writ petitioner by issuing memo of charge to
him nor any criminal proceeding was set in motion against him.
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
Moreover, neither proper inquiry for the alleged irregularities was
conducted against the writ petitioner by appointing inquiry officer
nor due opportunity of hearing was given to him in full-fledged
enquiry proceeding. Thus, the charge of grave misconduct cannot
be said to be proved against him which is a pre-condition for
exercise of power under rule 139(c) of Rules, 2000 by the State
Government.
32. We hereby hold that mere allegation of irregularities is not
sufficient to exercise the power under rule 139(c) of the Rules,
2000, rather the same has to be proved in a departmental
proceeding or criminal proceeding by giving due opportunity of
hearing to the person concerned. It is settled principle of law that
when a statute or law prescribes a specific procedure for an
action, that procedure must be followed strictly, rendering other
methods invalid.
33. 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 an authority in accordance with
the procedure applicable to 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 deduction of
pension in exercise of power conferred under rule 139(c) of the
Rules, 2000.
34. 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 case and as such the order of deduction of
2026:JHHC:7690-DB
pension of the writ petitioner/respondent was rightly quashed by
the learned Single Judge which needs no interference by this
Court.
35. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
36. Other pending I.A.(s), if any, are also dismissed.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
19th March, 2026
Sanjay/
A.F.R.
Uploaded on 19.03.2026
