IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7515 of 1996 ARJUN ROHTAGI SON OF LATE KEDAR NATH ROHGTAGI, RETIRED ACTING CHIEF ENGINEER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, NIRMAN BHAWAN, PATNA RESIDENT OF CC/38, PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSRTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Manoj Madhav For the State :- Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, A.C. to S.C.XI ----- 4 13/07/2010 This is the third visit of the petitioner to the High Court. Earlier orders of punishment have come to be interfered with by the High Court for certain legal infirmities found therein and twice over the matter was remanded back for the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Every time, it is the case of the petitioner, that similar infirmity was committed by them. He has made strenuous submissions on the order of punishment contained in annexure-1 dated 11.4.1996 but those submissions have lost their meaning in view of the significant development. - 2 - Admitted position is that the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.9.1990. Order of punishment, as already stated above, is dated 11.4.1996. Two of those orders of punishment had no meaning. First punishment order is that the petitioner would not be entitled to promotion for two years from 17.08.1990. Since the petitioner retired within a month and a half, obviously no promotion was expected within that period to be granted to him. The order of withholding of increment with effect from 17.08.1990 would also have lost meaning because of the time frame within which he had retired. Issue, therefore, is whether the third punishment of deduction of Rs.10,000/- in ten instalments from his pension could be passed after almost five and a half year of his retirement because deduction from pension or withholding of pension, in any manner, requires a proceeding to be carried out under the Bihar Pension Rules. There are two provisions which entitle the State to impose punishment or withholding of pension as the case may be. Rules are Rule 43(b) and Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Submission of the learned counsel is that neither of the ingredients nor the time frame fixed therein allows the - 3 - respondents to pass an order of recovery of Rs.10,000/- in ten instalments from the pension of the petitioner. Time frame fixed under rule 43(b) of the Rules is four years from the date of the event and the charge of illegal appointment for which the so called punishment has been imposed relates to many years ago and not within four years. So far as proceeding under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules is concerned, that must be initiated within three years from the date of sanction of pension. There is nothing to indicate that the order of punishment of recovery has been passed pursuant to any proceeding under Rule 139 of the Rules. In fact, this part of punishment has been appended as part of other punishments which have been imposed upon the petitioner in terms of the order contained in Annexure-1. There is nothing to indicate by the learned counsel for the State that the third punishment was passed on a proceeding under the Bihar Pension Rules. If the procedure has not been followed, then the third punishment cannot be imposed in a mechanical manner. On this aspect the petitioner succeeds. Punishment - 4 - of deduction of Rs.10,000/- in ten instalments from the pension of the petitioner is quashed. Rest of the punishment order, in view of the opinion of the Court expressed in the earlier part of the order, need not to be interfered with. This writ application is allowed in part. Respondents would be well advised to refund the amount so deducted from the pension of the petitioner to him preferably within one month from the date of communication or production of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)