The Proceedings as per Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules shall take place within 4 Years from the happening of an Event: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.64917 Vijay Kishore Singh Son of late Ram Vilash Singh Resident of Mohalla Pakri Chowk in front of Malti Hospital Maulabagh P.S Arrah Nawada District Bhojpur ... Petitioner The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna. The Principal Secretary Government of Bihar Patna. Water Resources Department The Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna. The Joint Secretary Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna The Special Work Officer Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna. The Account General Government of Bihar Patna. ... Respondents For the Petitioner s : Mr. R.K. Sinha Advocate Mr.Gajendra Nath Ojha Advocate For the State For the Accountant General : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Advocate : Mr.Harish Kumar GP 8 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 31 08 2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference. 2. The following reliefs as formulated by the petitioner have been claimed in the writ petition “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Notification contained in Memo No. 35 dated 13.01.2017 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder 10% pension Patna High Court CWJC No.64917 dt.31 08 2021 directed to be deducted for one year from the pension of the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Notification contained in Memo No. 1771 dated 19.08.2016 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary Water Resources Department Government of Bihar Patna respondent no. 4 whereby and whereunder 10 % pension directed to be deducted for one year from the pension of the petitioner illegally and arbitrarily iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the full pension to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum iv) To issue writ or writs direction or directions order or orders for which the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case v) Cost and Compensation be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents” 3. The short facts of the case according to the petitioner are that he joined the service as Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department on 05.02.1979 and in due course he discharged his duty as Superintending Engineer and thereafter as Executive Engineer Gandak Area Development Agencyspecifically confronting him with regard to the short quantity of cement used in the plaster work of Nala. It is only after due consideration of the show cause reply of the petitioner that the punishment order has been passed by a speaking order 6. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010 11. As such the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation Patna High Court CWJC No.64917 dt.31 08 2021 7. As regards the order of punishment the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter punishment order 8. The scope of interference by the High Court in a departmental proceeding is rather limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported in 2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein is has been observed as follows “12. Despite the well settled position it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the In disciplinary Central Administrative Tribunal proceedings the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations Patna High Court CWJC No.64917 dt.31 08 2021 f) the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence 13. Under Articles 226 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court shall not i) reappreciate the evidence ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence iv) go into the reliability of the evidence v) interfere if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience” 9. For the reasons stated above therefore the writ petition stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain J

Summary: A Writ Petition was filed concerning the punishment awarded in the previous case. The Petitioner argued that the time period of 4 years for the proceedings as per Rule 43B of Bihar pension Rules was violated and punishment was awarded not per the Enquiry Report. In the light of all facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Vikash Jain in the matter of Vijay Kishore Singh v. The State of Bihar[Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6499 of 2017]. 
The facts of the case as per petitioner were that he had joined the service of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department and due course was discharged his duty as Superintending Engineer and then as Executive Engineer. On a Complaint made in regard to construction, the flying squad team inquired about the matter and submitted it. The Petitioner was superannuated from the service. The proceedings took place under Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules and concluded with a deduction of 10% pension of the petitioner for one year. It was held that the punishment awarded was justified.

The Learned Counsel of Petitioner submitted that the proceedings took place after 4 years of the event. The Petitioner was awarded punishment without meeting the reasons given in the Enquiry Report.

The Learned Counsel for State opposed the Writ Petition and was against the question of the limitation. They said that the proceedings were conducted within 4 years. It was later on submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry report by merely giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”… this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010-11. As such, the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore, cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation.” The court dismissed the Writ Petition and added,” As regards the order of punishment, the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process, nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, punishment order was passed.”
 Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The facts of the case as per petitioner were that he had joined the service of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department and due course was discharged his duty as Superintending Engineer and then as Executive Engineer. On a Complaint made in regard to construction, the flying squad team inquired about the matter and submitted it. The Petitioner was superannuated from the service. The proceedings took place under Rule 43B of Bihar Pension Rules and concluded with a deduction of 10% pension of the petitioner for one year. It was held that the punishment awarded was justified. 
The Learned Counsel of Petitioner submitted that the proceedings took place after 4 years of the event. The Petitioner was awarded punishment without meeting the reasons given in the Enquiry Report.

The Learned Counsel for State opposed the Writ Petition and was against the question of the limitation. They said that the proceedings were conducted within 4 years. It was later on submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry report by merely giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”… this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010-11. As such, the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore, cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation.” The court dismissed the Writ Petition and added,” As regards the order of punishment, the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process, nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, punishment order was passed.”
 Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The Learned Counsel of Petitioner submitted that the proceedings took place after 4 years of the event. The Petitioner was awarded punishment without meeting the reasons given in the Enquiry Report. 
The Learned Counsel for State opposed the Writ Petition and was against the question of the limitation. They said that the proceedings were conducted within 4 years. It was later on submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry report by merely giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”… this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010-11. As such, the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore, cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation.” The court dismissed the Writ Petition and added,” As regards the order of punishment, the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process, nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, punishment order was passed.”
 Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The Learned Counsel for State opposed the Writ Petition and was against the question of the limitation. They said that the proceedings were conducted within 4 years. It was later on submitted that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry report by merely giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. 
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”… this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010-11. As such, the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore, cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation.” The court dismissed the Writ Petition and added,” As regards the order of punishment, the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process, nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, punishment order was passed.”
 Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,”… this Court finds the writ petition to be devoid of merit. It transpires from the enquiry report that the work in question was completed in the last quarter in the financial year 2010-11. As such, the initiation of the proceeding under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 20.01.2015 was well within four years thereof. It therefore, cannot be said that the proceeding under Rule 43B was barred by limitation.” The court dismissed the Writ Petition and added,” As regards the order of punishment, the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a writ petition. There is no infirmity in the decision making process, nor indeed has any such deficiency been pointed out by the petitioner. Upon differing with the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied and thereafter, punishment order was passed.”  Click Here To Read The Judgment