IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.477 of 2007 LAKSHMAN JHA Versus B.S.R.T.CORPORATION &ORS ----------- 4. 26.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the Respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2003 initiating fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired as an employee of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. On 26.9.1997 an order for recovery of Rs. 1,54,887.90 was passed against the petitioner for the period 1.4.1994 to December, 1994. An appeal preferred against the same was allowed by the Administrator in April, 2003 holding that no show cause notice has been issued and no departmental proceeding initiated before the order of recovery. The order was set aside and directions were issued to initiate departmental proceedings. Prior to the same, the petitioner retired on 31.1.2002. From the appellate order itself it is more than apparent that on the date of his retirement there was no departmental proceedings initiated, pending or under contemplation against the petitioner. Once the relationship of master and servant was severed the only option left was under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules against the petitioner. Even if this Court were to read the appellate order of April, 2003 in that context still the incident pertains to the year 1994. Any departmental proceeding was therefore also clearly barred under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which had to be in respect of an event in the - 2 - preceding four years. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents is hardly of any help and does not at all deal with the issues considered presently. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner having superannuated, the question of initiating any departmental proceedings against him much less under Bihar Pension Rules does not arise. The order dated 25.11.2003 is quashed. The writ application also claims arrears of salary since 1993 including the adjustment made wrongly against it for reasons of the present impugned order. The counter affidavit only states that it shall be done in accordance with the package scheme framed by the Supreme Court. This Court, therefore, directs the Respondents to strictly comply with the same and commence payment to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed; AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)