IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10431 of 2006 Sri Bindeswari Prasad Singh, Son of Late Narsingh Prasad Singh, Aged 70 years, Resident of Village Dharampur, P.S. Khaira, Distt. Jamui. ------------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 4. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamui. 5. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Munger. 6. Block Development Officer, Chakai, Distt. Jamui. 7. District Provident Officer, Munger-cum-Jamui at Munger. 8. Account General, Bihar Patna Birchand Patel Marg, Patna. ----------- 4 04.05.2010 Heard Mr. Alim Jang Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application by the abovenamed petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for payment of following Retiral Benefits:- (i) Pension and Gratuity. (ii) Provident Fund amount (iii) Group Insurance Amount. (iv) Encashment of Unutilized leave amount. (v) Arrears of salary for the period from 18.3.1985 to 30.9.1994. (vi) Arrears of salary for the period 30.9.1994 to 27.6.2003. (vii) Interest on delayed payment.” 2 A counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have enclosed an order of punishment dated 22.5.2008 in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The order which has been passed against the petitioner after his retirement to the extent that the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of any further amount/allowances for the period of suspension i.e. 18.9.1985 to 30.9.1994, the date of retirement cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, under the scope of Rule 43(b) only punishment that can be inflicted i.e. either withholding of any fixed percentage or full of the pension or recovery of loss of amount caused to the Government exchequer. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that the order dated 22.5.2008 is patently illegal and thus unsustainable in the eye of law. On the basis of such order, the petitioner’s entitlement towards the salary and other emoluments cannot be withheld. Nonetheless, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding even before the period of his retirement. Such 3 departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be continuing for the purpose of Rule 43(b) as was held in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000(1)PLJR 665 ~ 2000(2)BLJ 314. The order of punishment has been found to be unsustainable and therefore, this Court would quash such order of punishment and remit the matter back to the Collector of the Jamui district to pass a fresh order in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Any entitlement and/or payment including those which have been claimed in this writ petition would also depend on the outcome of the final order to be passed by the Collector of the Jamui district in terms of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)