IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4758 of 2008 Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Ram Pyare Singh, Mohalla B-163, Gandhi Vihar, Police colony, PS Gardanibagh, Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Home Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3) Addl. Director General of Police, CID, Bihar, Patna. 4) Inspector General, CID, Bihar, Patna. 5) Inspector General (Law and Order, Bihar, Patna. 6) The D.I.G., C.I.D., Bihar, Patna. 7) S.P. (D), C.I.D., Bihar, Patna. 8) D.S.P. (Accounts), C.I.D., Bihar, Patna. 9) Secretary cum Commissioner, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 10) Dy. Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna – Respondents. 4 28.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Correspondent Clerk. He retired on 1.4.2001 as a Section Officer. After his retirement by order, dated 17.1.2008 contained in Annexure 1 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner and he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished for the alleged offences as mentioned in the charge sheet which appertains to the period between 1994- 95 and 2000-01. The petitioner challenges the initiation of the proceeding on the ground 2 that initiation of the proceeding and the subsequent orders passed thereof under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules are bad and the proceeding cannot be initiated or held as it has been done after a delay of seven years for an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. It has been consistently held that a departmental proceeding cannot be initiated as proviso to rule 43(b) provides that departmental proceeding if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment, shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. It has been argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner is responsible for grave misconduct and there are four criminal cases pending against him. It is submitted that the departmental proceeding was instituted from the date of knowledge and as such it is within the aforesaid period of four years. 3 This question has been addressed and answered by a Division Bench of this court on 10.5.2010 in the case of Urmila Sharma vs. State of Bihar and others in CWJC No. 12943/2009. In view of the aforesaid judgment this court cannot support the contention raised by the State. I accordingly quash the order contained in memo no. 259, dated 17.1.2008 contained in Annexure ‘1’ and Annexure ‘A’, dated 19.2.2009 passed by the disciplinary authority vide memo no. 486. Needless to say that the petitioner will have to face the criminal cases pending against him. This writ petition is allowed in view of the discussions made above. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)