IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14327 of 2009 1. DEODAR PRASAD SINGH, RETIRED JUNIOR ENGINEER S/O LATE NANDKESHWAR PRASAD SINGH R/O KARMA ROAD, NEAR RANGE OFFICE, P.S.+P.O. AURANGABAD, DISTT. AURANGABAD (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF (CENTRAL) WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PLANNING AND DESIGN DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPTT., AURANGABAD (BIHAR) 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DRAINAGE DIVISION, KOPARIYA, SAHARSA 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION MURLIGANJ, CAMP- KHAJOORDEVA, SAHARSA ----------- 2. 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner retired as a Junior Engineer on 31.8.2003. After the master-servant relationship was severed any action against him was permissible strictly in terms of the Bihar Pension Rules. A show cause notice was issued on 20.4.2007 with regard to certain acts on his part of the year 1999/2000 with regard to handing over of charge/etc. The petitioner replied to the same on 15.5.2007 when orders have been passed on 2.10.2009 initiating proceedings against him under Section 43 (b) of the Pension Rules in pursuance of which charges have been framed on 15.10.2009. The short submission on behalf of the petitioner is that any proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Pension Rules can only be in respect of an event which took place four years prior to the date of issuance of the memo of charges. 2 Admittedly, the charges relate to the year 1999/2000 as evident from the order dated 2.10.2009 and therefore the proceedings are clearly barred by law. In absence of a show cause notice issued to the petitioner during his service tenure which admittedly was issued only on 20.4.2007 after the master-servant relationship stood severed, counsel for the State made the useful refrain for time to file counter affidavit, but found himself at a complete loss to oppose the legal submission based on repeated judicial pronouncements both of this Court and of the Apex Court. The merit of this order is naturally confined to the correctness of the dates urged on behalf of the petitioner. The writ application is allowed. The order dated 1.10.2009 initiating proceedings and the memo of charges dated 15.10.2009 are accordingly quashed. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)