IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4970 of 2010
1. GORAKH NATH SHARMA S/O LATE BINDA PRASAD R/O SRI
NAGAR, NORTH OF A.G. COLONY, P.S. SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT.-
PATNA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ROAD
CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN,
BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,
VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT,
VISHWESHARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate
For the State:- Mr. S.R. Sharan, A.C. to A.A.G-II
-----------
02. 15.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner questions the order dated
29.4.2005 initiating departmental proceedings against
him under 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. He is
stated to have superannuated on 31.10.2004.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the charges relate to the period 2.5.1991 to
30.11.1999, when he was posted as a Junior Engineer
in the Road Construction Division, Lakhisarai. It is
submitted that the memo of charge is dated 2.2.2005
which is much beyond the period of four years from
the date of the charge. Reliance is placed upon a
decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1995
SC 1853 (State of Bihar and Others Versus Mohd. Idris
Ansari) on which a decision of this Court reported in
2
2010 (1) P.L.J.R 686 (Bhubneshwar Sharma Versus
The State of Bihar & Others) is founded.
Learned counsel for the respondents from
the counter affidavit submits that the issue was
discovered in the audit objection of the year 1999-
2000. The petitioner did not handover charge in 1999
and therefore it is a continuing cause of action.
It is the specific assertion of the writ
petitioner in paragraph-7 that the charge period in
question is between 2.5.1991 to 30.11.1999. In that
context it has been pointed out during submission that
the period mentioned in paragraph-10 is an
inadvertent error and should be read in consonance
with paragraph-7 of the writ application. Dealing with
these two paragraphs, the respondents in their counter
affidavit have stated that it is a matter of record. It
therefore goes beyond the pale of any controversy that
the charges relate to the period 1991 to 1999. Even, if
the charges are taken to commence from 30.11.1999,
the memo of charge dated 2.2.2005 is clearly beyond
the period of four years.
In view of the discussion noticed in
paragraph-13 of the judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhubneshwar Sharma (supra) as explained by the
Supreme Court, the present proceedings under Section
3
43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules are clearly barred as
being beyond the period of four years from the date of
charge. The entire departmental proceedings against
the petitioner including memo of charges are therefore
quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to entire
consequential benefits in accordance with law.
The application stands allowed.
P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)