IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6433 of 2011 Nawal Prasad Singh S/o late Gopeeshwar Prasad Singh, R/o village- Pandui PO- Pandui, PS-Parasbigha, Distt.- Jehanabad--- -------------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna 3. The Inspector General, Jail, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna---------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the State: M/s Archana Prasad, AC to GP-19 ---------------------- 2 27.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has challenged initiation of so called proceeding under Rule 43-B of the Bihar Pension Rules in terms of notice contained in annexure-1 dated 27.10.2008. Submission of counsel is that there is no occasion nor is power vested in the authority to start proceeding after superannuation that too in relation to an issue relating to 2001-2002 i.e. more than four years prior to retirement. As proposition of law what has been asserted by the petitioner cannot be disputed. There is plethora of decisions that under rule 43-B no person can be proceeded in a matter departmentally after his superannuation and that too for an issue of four years prior to his retirement. In the present case those facts are not available. When first counter affidavit was filed it was very sketchy and therefore the Court rejected the same and even decided to impose a cost of Rs. 5000/- upon the deponent. Now by tendering apology, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein details of the 2 background under which annexure-A came to be issued has been furnished. It is evident from perusal of annexure-A which is chargesheet dated 9.1.2004 that the respondent authorities had decided to hold a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and chargesheet in PRAPATRA “ Ka” was drawn up and served upon him. The same chargesheet has been annexed as annexure-2 to the writ application filed by the petitioner. For some reason this matter has dragged on and the enquiry was not completed. Petitioner superannuated on 30.7.2008. Since the petitioner had superannuated in the meantime therefore a notice contained in annexure-B has been issued to him that the proceeding has to be completed under Rule 43- B of Bihar Pension Rules, in which the petitioner participated and finding of guilt has been recorded and opinion is being sought with regard to the kind of punishment which should be imposed against the petitioner, including withholding of some portion of his pension. If this is the factual position then it cannot be said that no departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated when he was in service. If the chargesheet was issued on 9.1.2004 relating to an omission or commission for the period 2001-02 then it is not a charge 4 years prior to retirement of the petitioner. Proceeding was initiated when he was still in service and it can be continued after retirement under rule 43(B). In view of above the prayer of the petitioner for quashing aannexure-1 therefore seems to be misplaced. If the final order is passed against the petitioner he has right to challenge the same, if he is so advised. 3 This writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The cost of Rs.5000/- which was ordered to be deposited by the deponent will be deposited with the Legal Services Authority of Patna High Court within one week from today. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)