IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14651 of 2009 1. KUSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE GORE LAL SINGH RESIDENT OF TULSI BHAWAN, RADHA DEVI LANE, NEAR SHIV FLOUR MILL, MOHALLA- MUNDICHAK, P.S KOTWALI DUSTT- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER- CUM- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR RESOURCES GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY- CUM - CONDUCTING OFFICER, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, LABOUR RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE TREASURY OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR 7. THE DISTRICT PRVIDENT FUND OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 18.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2007. After the master servant relationship stood severed, the Respondents served him with a memo of charge dated 24.10.2008 on seven counts. The proceedings were then converted to one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules by an order dated 22.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the orders to urge that after superannuation there can be no departmental proceedings except strictly in accordance with Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Learned counsel for the State sought to urge that the limitation of four years shall run from the date of knowledge of the Government. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Md. Idris Ansari (1995(2) PLJR (SC) 51 has held that in the event 2 that Rule 43(b) is sought to be invoked, it must relate to the allegations/charges only four years prior to the date of issuance of the charges. In the present case, it is apparent from the dates mentioned in the memo of charge itself that they are beyond four years counted from 24.10.2008. In that view of the matter, the departmental proceedings against the petitioner under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is not sustainable. The memo of charges dated 24.10.2008 and the purported conversion thereof on 22.12.2008 under Rule 43(b) is not sustainable in law. Both the orders are set aside. The petitioner is now entitled to all consequential benefits pursuant to his superannuation. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)