Blog

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