2025:JHHC:30691 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4697 of 2016 Vijay Kumar, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o 64-circular road, opposite to Arts Block Women's College Ranchi, P.O. and P.S.-Lalpur, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, The Commercial Tax Department. Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 3. The Under Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) 4. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. and P.S.-Dhurwa, District – Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. The Accountant General, Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S.-Doranda, District - Ranchi (Jharkhand) ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Nirupama, AC to Sr. SC-II Mr. S. Srivastava, Advocate -------- Order No.5 /Dated: 23rd September 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the impugned order as contained in Notification No. 2229 dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ application), issued by the 3rd Respondent; whereby an order has been passed for 50% reduction of pension of the petitioner as per Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted in RC 41(A)/96 Pat by the CBI Court. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay the full pension as the petitioner has retired on 2025:JHHC:30691 2 31.01.2011. 2. The issue involved in this case is as to whether any deduction pursuant to Rule 43(a) can be done after the petitioner has retired from his service. In the instant case admittedly the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2011 and the impugned order is dated 06.05.2013 whereby 50% reduction of pension of the petitioner as per Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules has been made on the ground of past misconduct in connection with conviction of the petitioner in RC 41(a)/96 Pat by the CBI Court. 3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, which has not been disputed by either of the respondents, that the reduction of pension under Rule 43(a) cannot be done for an offence committed prior to the superannuation of the petitioner. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 281 of 2018 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has settled the issue. For brevity relevant para is extracted as under: “Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has submitted that the pension and other retiral benefits could not have been automatically stopped in view of the conviction. Moreover, the date of conviction is 19.12.2012 whereas, the writ petitioner-appellant was entitled for getting the retiral benefits including pension on the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.08.2008. The issue regarding application of Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 came to be considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Nityanand Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors [2016 (2) PLJR 315]. The Division Bench, while answering the reference made by the learned Single Judge, has held as under: “Before coming to the proviso which consists of three clauses (a), (b) and (c) along with an explanation provided after clause (c), it is obvious from a comparison of Rule 43(a) with Rule 43(b) that the former relates to future good conduct of a pensioner and the same may be invoked if he is convicted of serious crime or is held guilty of grave misconduct. The serious crime or grave misconduct under this provision, i.e. rule 43(a) is not related to his conduct during service and/or service rendered on re employment. It is a conduct expected of a pensioner in future after he is granted a pension. Thus, there is clear distinction between the aim and object of Rule 43(a) and that of Rule 43(b). Both the provisions operate in different areas having different connotations. The decision under rule 43(a) is not on account of any departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding instituted when the government servant was in service or instituted later in respect of an event which related to his service rendered before retirement or on re-employment. On the other hand, the purpose of Rule 43(b) is clearly to enable the State government to continue or initiate a departmental or judicial proceeding in respect of omissions or commissions by a government servant done while he was in service. Such provision in the rules governing pension vests the State Government with necessary powers to maintain action against a retired government employee for his conduct while in service but subject to some restrictions mentioned in the proviso. The purpose of proviso is to safeguard pensioners or superannuated employees from loss of pension on account of belated disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings. On the other hand, the future good conduct mentioned in Rule 43(a) is good conduct expected of every government servant even after superannuation. Such future conduct is not related to his service period at all. Hence, the requirement of proviso (a) (ii) cannot apply to Rule 43(a). Such provision in the proviso puts a 2025:JHHC:30691 3 restriction upon the power of the State government to initiate a departmental proceeding if not instituted while the government servant was in service, either before retirement or during re-employment. Such departmental proceeding, by virtue of the provision under consideration cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the institution of such proceeding. Rule 43 (a) comes into play after retirement and applies till pensioner breathes his last. There can be no question of time limitation for exercise of such power because this Rule is not at all connected with any departmental proceeding. Rule 43(a) nowhere refers to any departmental proceeding instituted earlier or to be instituted later. Hence, it cannot be governed by proviso (a) (ii) to Rule 43(b) as it can apply only to initiation of departmental proceeding by the Government after an employee has retired.” It would be apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment that the Division Bench of Patna High Court has held that Rule 43(a) has nothing to do with the past service or any misconduct of the pensioner during the course of his service, rather it is with respect to future conduct of the concerned employee and admittedly, though the petitioner has been held to be guilty after his retirement in a case which was instituted during the period of his service but the same was with respect to his conduct during the said period. Thus, we are also in respectful agreement with the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court on the issue in Nityanand Kumar Singh (Supra) and thus, we hold that the Pension, Gratuity or other retiral benefits could not have been withheld by the State authorities and that too without assigning any reason, under Rule 43(a). So far Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules is concerned, if any action is contemplated under the aforesaid provision, then the requirement would be of issuance of notice to the affected person and after granting opportunity of hearing, a reasoned order should be passed in consultation with Bihar Public Service Commission and it goes without saying that such action is to be taken by the State Government. Admittedly, nothing having been done in the present case, in our view, the respondents were not at all authorised to withhold pension and other retiral benefits.” 4. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench of this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle in LPA No. 307 of 2020 wherein the Division Bench vide its order dated 11.09.2023 has held in paragraph nos. 73 and 74 as under: “73. Since, Rule 43(a) speaks about the future good conduct making it as an implied condition of every grant of pension, while, Rule 43(b) speaks about the past conduct as has been discussed. 74. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order impugned suffers from an error. 5. Thus, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the pension, gratuity or other retiral benefits could not have been withheld by the State authority under Rule 43(a) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Accordingly, impugned order contained in Notification bearing no. 2229 dated 06.05.2013 (Annexure-5 to the writ application), is hereby, quashed and set aside. 6. The Respondents are hereby directed to refund the entire amount which has been deducted pursuant to the impugned order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; failing which the Petitioner shall be entitled for 6% compound interest, from the date of deduction till the date of actual payment. 2025:JHHC:30691 4 7. As a result, the instant writ petition stands allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 23.09.2025 Amit