IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2115 of 2011 Anand Mohan Thakur S/O Late Prafulla Mohan Thakur R/O Vill.- Muradpur, P.S.- Nauhatta, Distt.- Saharsa-------------------- ---------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner-Cum- Secretary Department Of General Administration, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Under Secretary Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Under Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Principal Private Secretary (Apta Sachiv) To the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 7. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea 8. The District Magistrate, Purnea 9. The Additional Collector, Purnea 10. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Purnea---------- -----------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Purushottam Jha, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Sr. Advocate A.A.G IX Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad AC to AAG IX ------------------------- 4 21.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. A proposition of law or applicability of the said law is always based on a set of facts and not in abstract. The strenuous contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that decision of the respondent authority to initiate a proceeding contained in annexure-1 as well as subsequent copy of so called charge contained in annexure-2 falls foul of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules specially in the set of facts that the petitioner retired on 31.8.2009 and the resolution to initiate the proceeding contained in annexure-1 is dated 24.11.2010. He further contends that since the so called charge relates to the act of omission or commission of 2 the petitioner for the year 1991-92 which is more than 19 years prior to his retirement such proceeding is barred. He also contends that whatever be the circumstance which prevented the non-initiation of the proceeding in question in time the same is hit by the time frame fixed by rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and the entire proceeding must come to an end. However attractive the submission of learned counsel on the question of law may be but when the matter is gone deeper down, the actual state of affairs do not reveal that it is one of those cases which comes squarely within the ambit of Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules. Annexure-2 is a set of charges which was drawn up way back on 4.1.1999 and not now after retirement. The Court was initially in agreement with the petitioner’s contention but when the original record was produced by learned Additional Advocate General IX for perusal of the Court and records were looked into it is evident that the proceeding relates to the period when petitioner was very much in service and for whatever be the reason the matter dragged on for years, of which the petitioner was well aware. Initiation of the proceeding was made against the petitioner for some serious charges which is evident from annexure-2 itself. Somewhere along, the whole proceeding got lost in red- tapeism but the issue never came to an end. It did not proceed at the speed which it was expected to proceed when the petitioner was still in service. From the original record it is also evident that it is not that the petitioner was not aware of the proceeding having been imitated against him as there is material to show that he has responded to the notice or the show cause. Existence of the proceeding as such cannot be doubted in view of the 3 sufficient evidence available with regard to the departmental proceeding, which was initiated when the petitioner was very much in service. Matter was allowed to drag on for many a years which this Court is convinced was staged managed only with the object of reaching the age of superannuation so that the claim of immunity, under law, on the enquiry, post retirement can be raised. Since the existence of the proceeding and its pendency is not a disputed fact as such, it does not mean that it is a fresh case where chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner in terms of annexure-1 for the first time in the year 2010, post his retirement. In fact, it is only a reminder or issuance of a notice with regard to events which have already been initiated many many years ago. In view of the same and the factual evidence which has emerged in the matter, this Court does not feel that it is one of those fit cases where interference at this stage with annexure-1 is required to be made, as the case does not squarely come within the ambit of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner will have to explain his conduct and cooperate in the departmental enquiry even though he had superannuated because of the reason that the factual matrix does not in encompass the matter totally within the ambit of Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules and the interpretation given thereto by the High Court earlier. This writ petition is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)