Patna High Court
Indrajeet Rana vs The State Of Bihar on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 333 of 2024
======================================================
Indrajeet Rana Son of Nalini Kanta Rana, Resident of Village-
Manusamuriya, Mahushmuriya, Manusmuria, P.S.- Baharagora, District- East
Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director, (Education), Magadh Pramandal, Gaya cum
Enquiring Officer, Gaya, Bihar.
5. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment) cum Presenting Officer,
Nawada, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Akhilesh Dutta Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (13)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 07-05-2025
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner
seeking following reliefs:
"... for issuance of a writ in the
nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the
order dated 11.10.2023 vide Memo No 941
(Annexure P/17) passed by the Secretary
Education Government of Bihar, Patna whereby
and where under after quashing the order dated
10.08.2018
vide memo of 809 passed by the
Director Education (Primary) Government of
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
Bihar, Patna and further ordered to initiate
departmental proceeding under Order 43 (b) of
Bihar Pension Rules after expiry of 6 years from
the date of retirement i e on and from
28.02.2017 and also for payment of all the
retiral dues including pension on and from
28.02.2017 to till today and also for payment of
two months full salary on and from 28.12.2016
to 28.02.2017 after quashing the order dated
10.08.2018 vide Memo No 809 passed by the
Director Education (Primary) Government of
Bihar, Patna and also for quashing the order
dated 07.11.2023 vide Memo No 993 (Annexure
P/18) whereby and where under the Director
Education (Primary) initiated departmental
proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension
Rules and Regional Deputy Director, Education
Magadh Pramandal Gaya was appointed as
Enquiring Oficer and District Programme
Officer (Establishment) Nawada is appointed as
Presenting Officer and further for an
appropriate direction/order/orders/command for
payment of regular pension to the petitioner
and/or for any other order/orders as may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case and for any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner may be found entitled."
2 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as a Supervisor in Adult Education Department and
joined his duty on 16.01.1982. Subsequently, he joined as a Block
Education Officer in the month of March, 2007. Thereafter, on the
basis of one complaint made by one Binoda Nand Singh, a trap
was conducted and the petitioner was caught red handed by the
Vigilance Team of taking bribe a sum of Rs 8,000/- on 28.12.2016.
He was taken in custody and sent to jail and released from judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
custody on 17.04.2017. The Vigilance PS Case No 156 of 2016
was initiated against the petitioner under Sections 7/13 (2) read
with Sections 13 (1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
When he was in jail, he retired on 28.02.2017. Subsequently, on
08.09.2017, a departmental charge sheet (Annexure P/3) has been
issued against the petitioner. Enquiry Officer and Presenting
Officer were also appointed. However, with the charge memo,
neither list of witnesses nor any document related to charge
levelled against the petitioner were provided to the petitioner.
Show cause was called for and filed by the petitioner. The Enquiry
Officer, in is enquiry report dated 19.10.2018 (Annexure P/8)
arrived on the conclusion that the charge levelled against the
petitioner is suspicious and it can only be decided by the
competent Court and further gave his opinion that the charge can
be proved only on the outcome of the case pending in the
Vigilance Court. The Disciplinary Authority, without giving any
disagreement or agreement with the Enquiry Officer, issued the
second show cause vide letter dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure P/9).
The petitioner replied but without considering the reply submitted
by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority issued a punishment
letter (Annexure P/11) vide Memo No 809 dated 10.08.2018
whereby he forfeited 100% pension of the petitioner. Against the
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 13.04.2022 before
the Additional Chief Secretary of the Department. The Appellate
Authority, vide its order dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P/17)
quashed the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 10.08.2018 and
further ordered to initiate fresh departmental enquiry against the
petitioner.
3 In the light of the said, the Director of Education
(Primary) issued a letter dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P/18)
whereby and where under a proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of Bihar
Pension Rules has been initiated and the Enquiry Officer as well as
Presenting Officer were appointed. Hence, this petition has been
preferred by the petitioner.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that decision taken by the respondent is against Rule 43 (b) of the
Bihar Pension Rules because Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension
Rules mandates that after expiry of four years, the departmental
enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, on this ground alone, the
order dated 11.10.2023 whereby a fresh order of enquiry has been
passed under Rule 43 (b) is liable to be set aside. Reliance has
been placed by the counsel on the judgment dated 03.09.2024
passed by the Division Bench of this Court on the case of Srikant
Singh -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others (LPA No 58 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
2024). Also reliance has been placed on the case of State of Bihar
& Others -Versus- Md Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56.
Further reliance has been placed on the case of Nityanand Kumar
Singh -Versus- The State of Bihar & Others, 2016 (2) PLJR 315.
5 The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
submits that since there were so many lacunae in the enquiry
proceeding and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of
punishment on the basis of the said order, the Appellate Authority
quashed and set aside the order of punishment and passed the
order to initiate fresh enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore,
invoking the power vested under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Penion
Rules, the authorities have rightly passed the order of fresh
enquiry.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents annexed with the petition as well as the
counter affidavit.
7 Undisputedly, on the basis of trap, the petitioner was
sent in judicial custody on 29.12.2016 and released from the
judicial custody on 17.04.2017. Perusal of the initial charge memo
issued to the petitioner and the enquiry report clearly shows that
neither the list of witnesses were prepared nor list of documents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
Perusal of the enquiry report further shows that the Enquiry
Officer himself arrived on the conclusion that the charges levelled
against the petitioner are suspicious and it can be proved only after
the outcome of criminal case which is pending against him.
Further, the Disciplinary Authority, in his order of punishment,
wrongly arrived on the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer has
found the charges proved against the petitioner. The appellate
authority, while considering the appeal, taking note of these facts,
rightly quashed the order of punishment dated 10.08.2018
(Annexure P/11) passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
8 Now, the only question remains to be decided is that
once the order of punishment has been set aside then the
respondents are entitled to get a fresh departmental enquiry
initiated invoking the power under Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension
Rules.
9 At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce
the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules.
"43. (a) ... ... ...
(b) The Appointment authority of the
post held at the time of retirement further
reserve to themselves the right of withholding of
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
departmental or judicial proceeding 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 reemployment
after retirement:
Provided that-
(a) ... ... ...
(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 proceedings; and
(iii) ... ... ..."
10 From a plain reading of proviso (a) (i) of Rule 43
(b), it is quite clear that the departmental enquiry shall not be
initiated without getting prior sanction of the State Government.
Further perusal of proviso (a) (ii) of Rule 43 (b), it is also clear
that the departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) shall have to
be initiated within four years of an event from which the petitioner
was subjected to departmental proceeding. On examination of the
facts of this case clearly show that the respondents failed to
produce the order of sanction for initiating any proceeding under
Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules against the petitioner. Further,
undisputedly the trap was conducted on 28.12.2016 and the
petitioner was sent to judicial custody on 29.12.2016 after
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
instituting Vigilance PS Case No 156 of 2016 against him under
Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Thus, the departmental proceeding started
invoking the power under Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules by
the respondents who passed the order on 07.11.2023 (Annexure
P/18) which is near about after 7 years from the registration of
alleged offence against the petitioner through Vigilance PS Case
No 156 of 2016 which is not permissible in law.
11 Therefore, as discussed above, the part of the order
impugned dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P/17) whereby a fresh
departmental enquiry has been directed to be initiated against the
petitioner under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is liable to
be and is hereby quashed and set aside. However, so far as the
part of the impugned order dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P/17),
whereby the Appellate Authority quashed and set aside the order
passed by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the same is
affirmed. Consequently, the letter dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure
P/18) is also quashed and set aside.
12 The petitioner is entitled to get all pensionary
benefits and consequential reliefs. The respondents are directed to
release the same within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.333 of 2024 dt.07-05-2025
13 The writ petition is allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 23.04.2025
Uploading Date 07.05.2025
Transmission Date NA
