Raj Kishore Lal (Dead) Through Lrs vs State Of Bihar & Ors

Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, a retired Additional District & Sessions Judge, was dismissed. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment whereby 25% of his pension has been forfeited.

The petitioner retired from service on 31st January 2003. On 09.05.2006, he was served with the memorandum of charges, levelling three charges against him. The first charge was that he had wrongly granted bail to an accused on 20.02.2002. The second charge was that he had delivered judgment in a tearing hurry in a case on 10.01.2003, even though the case was fixed for arguments.

The third charge was that on 17.08.2002, counsel for the respondent had requested for time to make further arguments in a case on the ground that his wife had died and he had not been able to prepare himself and the petitioner refused that request and proceeded to decide the case.

In the departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and 25% of his pension has been forfeited. The rule which govern this case Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 which reads as follows:

"43(a)....

(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement,

Provided that -

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment;

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government;

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and

at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made;...."

(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and

(c) the Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be constituted before final orders are passed.

Explanation.- For the purposes of the Rule-

(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed, against the pensioner are issue to him or, if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and

(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted;-

(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal court; and

(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the complaint is presented, or as the case may be, an applications is made to a Civil Court."

Rule 43 (b)(a)(ii) clearly stipulates that no inquiry can be conducted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before initiation of proceedings. The explanation provides that proceedings will be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him. Admittedly the charge issued on 09.05.2006 relates to an incident of 20.02.2002. Therefore, the proceedings in respect of the first charge would be time barred.

Insofar as the other two charges are concerned, these basically are charges for not granting adjournments at the request of the counsel and deciding the matters. This was a judicial function which the petitioner performed. There is no allegation that this was done for extraneous consideration. Such an order may be set aside in judicial proceedings but we are of the view that no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated in this regard. In Ramesh Chander Singh Vs. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. a three Judge Bench of this Court, after considering the entire law on the subject, clearly disapproved the practice of initiating disciplinary proceedings against the officers of the district judiciary merely because the judgment/orders passed by them are wrong. It was held thus:-

"12. This Court on several occasions has disapproved the practice of initiation of disciplinary proceedings against officers of the subordinate judiciary merely because the judgments/order passed by them are wrong. The appellate and revisional courts have been established and given powers to set aside such orders. The higher courts after hearing the appeal may modify or set aside erroneous judgments of the lower courts. While taking disciplinary action based on judicial orders, The High Court must take extra care and caution."

In view of the above discussion, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment/order of the High Court is set aside. The order imposing punishment is quashed. Monetary relief be provided to the petitioner within 3 months failing which the petitioner will be entitled to claim interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from today.