IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6414 of 2007 Bhrigun Singh, SON OF LATE SUBH DAYAL SINGH, R/O- MOH:- PREMCHAND PATH GAURAKSHINI, P.O. SASARAM, DISTRICT- ROHTAS :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)- II, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, WATER RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DIRECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION, WATER RESOURCES (IRRIGATION) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. COLLECTOR, BHABHUA. 6. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHABHUA. 7. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION, OFFICER SONE YOJANA, SASARAM. 8. TREASURY OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM) :--- RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Ranjan Ghoshrane, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. S.B.N Singh, A.C. to G.P.-6. For the Accountant General : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate. ======= 4. 02.12.2011. Re: I.A. No. 5980 of 2009. During the pendency of the writ petition petitioner left for his heavenly abode on 17.10.2008 leaving behind his wife Sanjharo Devi as his heir and legal representative. 2. Let name of the original writ petitioner be expunged from the array of parties and Sanjharo Devi be substituted in his place. 3. Interlocutory Application No. 5980 of 2009 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the substituted petitioner, State and the Accountant General. 5. Husband of the substituted petitioner 2 superannuated while serving as Amin and Incharge Kanoongo with effect from 31.12.2000. After his superannuation he was served with charge-sheet dated 18.10.2003 (Annexure-3 series) alleging that he committed misconduct by initiating 21 land acquisition records during the year 2001-02. Another charge levelled against him is that he made payment in connection with Land Acquisition Record No. 1/94-95 to 14 applicants although applicants were settlees of the land which stood recorded during the revisional survey in the name of the State of Bihar. Husband of the petitioner filed written defence refuting both the charges by stating that he having superannuated on 31.12.2000 the records referred to under Charge No. 1 could not have initiated the records in the year 2001-02. As regards the other charge the original writ petitioner submitted that 42.25 acres of land which was the subject matter of Land Acquisition Record No. 1/1994-95 was dealt with by him but he has recommended for payment to the 14 individuals as they were the settlees of the lands in question which stood recorded during the revisional survey in the name of the State of Bihar and was validly settled. In the light of the settlement made opinion was sought 3 from the Government Pleader and in the light of the opinion on the orders of the superior officer payments were made. It was also contended in the written defence that charge no. 3 dates back to the year 1994-95, as such, he could not have been proceeded for the same after his retirement in view of the provisions contained in proviso (a), sub-clause (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which require that the proceeding initiated for withholding the pension of the service holder should be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of the proceeding. It is submitted that in the instant case proceeding was initiated by issue of charge-sheet dated 18.10.2003 and the event for which the proceeding was initiated dates back to the year 1994-95, as such, the same was beyond the purview of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The Enquiry Officer considered the aforesaid show-cause reply and found the original petitioner not connected with charge no. 1 but held him guilty of the other charge holding in the concluding portion of the report that the land stood recorded during the revisional survey in the name of the State of Bihar and was settled in favour of 14 settlees and the settlees were paid compensation for 4 acquisition of the lands in the light of the opinion of the Government Pleader and the orders of the superior officer. The Enquiry Officer did not record any finding with regard to the non-maintainability of the proceeding. In the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer original writ petitioner filed his second show-cause reply again reiterating the same stand which he had taken in the written defence. The disciplinary authority without appreciating the contents of the second show-cause reply proceeded to pass the order dated 14.3.2007, Annexure-6 withholding 60% pension of the original writ petitioner. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the Enquiry Report as also the impugned order dated 14.3.2007, Annexure-6, I am satisfied that proceeding in respect to the land acquisition record no. 01/1994-95 against the petitioner could not have been initiated under charge-sheet dated 18.10.2003 as on the date of issue of the charge-sheet which is the date of initiation of the proceeding the event for which the charge-sheet was issued was more than four years old. On merits also I am satisfied that original petitioner made payment of compensation to the 5 settlees of the land in the light of the opinion of the Government Pleader as also the orders of the superior authorities and in such circumstances I have no option but to hold that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and is, accordingly, quashed. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)