IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18309 of 2009 SUDHA SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 18.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution dated 8.4.2009 initiating departmental proceedings against her under Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The memo. of charges dated 19.11.2008 at Annexure-2 makes it apparent that it pertains to certain appointments stated to have been made by the petitioner allegedly irregular between the period 1987-88 to 15.1.1990. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. It contends that the proceedings have been started against the petitioner in light of an enquiry report submitted by the C.B.I. dated 30.11.2004 and, therefore, reckoning the period of four years under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, from the date of the report which shall be the date that the matters were brought to the knowledge of the authorities, the proceedings were in time with four years stipulated in Rule 43 (b). 2 Learned counsel for the State in support of his submission places reliance on a Bench decision of this Court in 2003 (1) P.L.J.R. 172 (ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS). The scope and purport of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, stand well settled by judicial pronouncements that can it be in respect of only an event on which took place four years prior to the issue of charges. Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult to oppose the application, but emphasizes the right of the respondents to proceed further in view of the Bench decision as aforesaid and the circular dated 2.12.2006 issued in pursuance of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner places before this Court a Division Bench decision in L.P.A. N. 446 of 1998 and L.P.A. No. 759 of 2005, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at page-9 of the Judgment recorded disagreement with the judgment in the case of ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS holding as follows:- “If this view is to be accepted then it would be required to apply to words in the statute which having regard to the plain and simple nature of the language 3 used in the statute has no scope for specified the same.” The defence of the respondents being based on a Bench decision of this Court not approved by the Division Bench, the memo. of charges dated 19.11.2008 and the resolution dated 27.11.2008 are held to be not sustainable in law. The resolution dated 27.11.2008, the memo. of charges dated 19.11.2008, the fresh resolution dated 8.4.2009 is, therefore, not sustainable and they are accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)