Letters Patent Appeal No.775 of 2006 ----------------- Against the order of learned Single Judge dated 5-8-2005 passed in CWJC no. 11337/2001 ----------------- 1. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation Deptt.), Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 2. The Dy. Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation Deptt.) Sinchai Bhawan, Patna .....Appellants Versus 1. Bholan Choudhary aged about 61 years, son of Late Muneshwar Choudhary, resident of Koshi Chowk, Saharsa, P.S & District Saharsa 2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna .......Respondents ------- For the appellants: Mr. Saket Tiwary, JC to GP 16 For the respondents: None ----------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Shiva Kirti Singh & H.K. Srivastava, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Nobody appears on behalf of respondents. 2. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of writ court dated 5-8-2005 whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 bearing CWJC No. 11337/2001 was allowed and the order of punishment dated 21-10-2000 whereby 75% of pension of the writ petitioner had been withheld for a period of three years in a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar 2 Pension Rules was quashed on the ground that the procedure of detailed enquiry for awarding major punishment was not followed by the authorities. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, perusing the impugned order and the averments made in the memorandum of appeal, we find that there is no dispute on facts that prior to retirement of respondent no.1 he was given only a show cause notice in respect of certain charges and after his retirement, only on perusing reply of the retired employee submitted two days prior to his retirement, the order of punishment dated 21-10-2000 was passed without holding any detailed enquiry through an enquiry officer as required under Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 4. A bare perusal of proviso (iii) to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules shows that for inflicting permissible punishment under the Bihar Pension Rules the departmental proceeding has to be conducted in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be 3 made. In the present case the procedure was only to issue show cause notice on basis whereof only a minor punishment would have been awarded to the respondent no.1 if he had been in service. 5. Thus, on the basis of facts and legal position, no fault can be found in the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Patna High Court The 26th August, 2010 NAFR/BKS (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)