IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.240 of 2010 1. ARJUN PASWAN S/O LATE CHHOTAN PASWAN R/O LIG 10/344, HANUMAN NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S.PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHWESHAWRAIA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA ----------- 2 21.6.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 11.12.2009 whereby the departmental proceeding initiated vide resolution contained in memo no. 5523(s) dated 25.7.2007 has been converted in a proceeding under Section 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. The impugned resolution has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since the charges relates to period beyond 4 years, as such conversion of the proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is barred by limitation and such order must be quashed. Petitioner was placed under suspension relating to some charges vide notification dated 22.7.1994 under rule 49(A) of civil services (Classification Control and 2 Appeal) Rules 1930 and departmental proceeding under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules) 1930 was initiated. In the departmental proceeding the inquiry officer submitted inquiry report on 13.11.1996. On the basis of the inquiry report a final order was passed inflicting punishment of recovery of the amount alleged to be defalcated but the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWJC No. 11228 of 2002 on the ground that without issuing any show cause notice the final order has been passed. The writ application was allowed. The final order of punishment was quashed directing the respondents to issue second show cause notice to the petitioner before passing the final order and then proceed in the matter. The Respondents thereafter vide resolution dated 25.5.2007 contained in memo no. 6523(S) re-initiated the departmental proceeding and the charge was framed . Petitioner retired on 31.3.2009. Thereafter he filed writ application for direction to make payment of 10% pension, full gratuity, GPF amount, leave encashment and 40% commuted value of pension for the reason that 3 he was only being paid 90% of his pension. Petitioner’s grievance is that subsequent to the disposal of the writ application on 3.11.2009 by the impugned resolution dated 11.12.2009 the respondent has taken resolution, whereby the departmental proceeding initiated vide order dated 25.7.2007 has been converted into a proceeding under Section 43(b) (II) of the Bihar Pension Rules, in respect of an event which took place, much beyond the period of four years from the date of resolution to convert the departmental proceeding under Pension Rules. In support of the contention the petitioner has placed reliance on different decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court. After considering the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel and the counsel appearing for the State as well as the decision relied upon by the petitioner, I find that decision reported in 2002 (4) PLJR SC 80( Shyam Sunder Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & ors.) as well as other decisions have no application in the case of the petitioner, for the reason that four years’ period of limitation will have application 4 in such cases where proceeding under the Bihar Pension Rules had been initiated after the superannuation of the Government employee and the charge relates to a period beyond four years from the date of initiation of the proceeding. In the present case the departmental proceeding was initiated in the year 2007 and at that time petitioner was very much in service, in such circumstances, if the departmental proceeding has been converted into a proceeding under Bihar Pension Rules, Rule 43(b) clause (II) of the Bihar Pension Rule will have no application. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.kumar