IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16484 of 2010 Kapildeo Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 2/ 08/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The very short question involved in this case stands fully covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 S.C. 1853 (Md. Idrish Ansari Versus State of Bihar). Nonetheless, the issue has come back as litigation where none really exists. The petitioner retired as a Head Clerk on 30.6.2007. After his superannuation on 22.10.2007 a Memo. of Charge was issued on three grounds. It related to events between the years 1990-1992. Without holding departmental proceedings in accordance with law under Rule-43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, if it could have been done, recovery was ordered for Rs.37,338/- with 12% interest on 6.5.2009. The petitioner came to this Court when he was relegated to the remedy of appeal. The appellate authority has remanded the matter to the District Magistrate which remains pending. Learned counsel for the State submits that adjournment may be granted to file counter affidavit. The writ application was filed on 28.9.2010 2 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General, the second one to facilitate early filing of the counter affidavit. The punishment imposed directs recovery of Rs.37,338/- along with 12% interest. There can be no doubt that the petitioner as a retired person shall be put to great financial strain in the evening of his life when he has no other source of income except his pension. In (2005) 3 SCC 501 (Ram Dayal Rai v. Jharkhand SEB) dealing with a 5% reduction of pension it was held at paragraph 17:- “17…..If the pensioner’s benefit is cut at 5% out of the total amount of pension payable to the appellant, the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury since, after retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available to eke out a livelihood for the retired employees of the Government.” This Court has already held in C.W.J.C. No.11of 2010 that a proceeding under Rule-43B of the Pension Rules is an extremely serious matter to be resorted to only after full examination of the facts of the case including the likelihood of the outcome of the same. “A proceeding under the Pension Rules is an extremely serious matter and is not to be lightly resorted to. Equally, serious matters shall brook no delay. There has to be serious judicious exercise of the power when all aspects including the possibility of the punishment being ultimately upheld 3 must all be considered at the very inception. A pensioner has to contest the proceedings both before the authorities and then before the Court from his meager pensionary resources. At a time when he should be enjoying the peace and serenity after a hard life, it is a serious jolt to him mentally and socially. Proposals should not be routinely initiated at the lower level and vetted at the senior level only after due application of mind. The government also should not incur wasteful expenditure in contesting a litigation which should never have been seen the light of the day. The man hours lost and wasted in the office pursuing a lost cause is but a national loss. Every frivolous proceeding calls for introspection by the government not only with regard to the man hours wasted, the wasteful expenditure incurred by the government and the social and monetary humiliation caused to the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the State finds it difficult on the facts to demonstrate how a memo. of charge on 22.10.2007 with regard to events of 1990-92, much beyond the period of four years from the date of the charge is sustainable under Rule-43(b) of the Pension Rules, more particularly in light of the explicit discussion contained in paragraph-7 of the case of Md. Idrish Ansari (supra). The Court is not persuaded to adjourn this matter any further as any indulgence by grant of adjournment to file counter affidavit shall only be at the cost of denial of timely justice to the petitioner. The Commissioner has remanded the matter on 29.4.2010. The respondents have had more than 4 enough time to pass fresh final orders. Any deduction made from the pension of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order is directed to be refunded forthwith. The order of punishment dated 6.5.2009 is accordingly set aside. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)