IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13113 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Uday Bhan Singh S/O Late Lal Babu Singh R/O Vill. + P.O.- Ramchandrapur, P.S.- Thabey In The Distt Of Gopalganj .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Princiapl Secretary, Department Of Home Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General, Prison, Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Administration Home (Jail) Department, Bihar, Patna 5. The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Buxar 6. The Jail Superintendent, Distt. Jail, Siwan 7. The Jailor, District Jail, Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chakradhari Shar Singh Aa ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 13-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the nature of the order of punishment and the proposed order of the Court no useful purpose is going to be served by asking for a counter affidavit at this stage. It is not in controversy that departmental proceedings were initiated while in service on 30.12.2008. The petitioner superannuated on 30.9.2009. The order of punishment withholding four increments with cumulative effect and nothing was payable for the period of suspension except for subsistence allowance but which was otherwise to be Patna High Court CWJC No.13113 of 2011 (3) dt.13-12-2011 2 counted for service has been passed on 2.3.2010. The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal whereafter he came to this Court. Learned counsel for the State informs that the appeal has been rejected. It needs no discussion that if departmental proceedings were initiated while in service, it stood automatically converted into one under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and no formal orders to that effect were required. But, after his superannuation the punishment had to be commensurate with the powers available to the respondents and the petitioner could not have been imposed the punishment which was possible to be given to a delinquent in service only. If the master and servant relationship stood severed, the question of withholding any increments from a pension does not arise. The impugned order dated 2.3.2010 and the appellate order dated 8.7.2010 are accordingly set aside, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in accordance with law. The application is allowed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)