2025:JHHC:32519 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.1800 of 2024 ------ Dr. Braj Nandan Prasad Verma, son of Late Harihar Prasad, resident of P.O. & P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Special Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. Nos.1 to 3 at Secretariate, P.O. & P.S. Sachiwalay / Secretariate, District Patna. 4. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Agriculture and Co-operative Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, at Nepal House, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 5. The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Jharkhand, at & P.O. Hesag, Pashupalan Bhawan, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 6. The Regional Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranchi, at & P.O. Hesag, Pasupalan Bhawan, P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 7. Treasury Officer, Ranchi, at & P.O. Ranchi, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 8. Principal Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, at P.O., P.S. & District Patna. 9. Principal Account General (A & E), Jharkhand, at P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Ragini Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.P. Roy, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, AC to GA-V Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate ------ 06/ 09.10.2025 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. Certiorari or in nature thereof for quashing / cancelling 2025:JHHC:32519 2 / rescinding the orders and / or the directions- i. Contained in Memo - Pen - 5 - 1193 dated 12-10- 2022 (Annexure-6/A) issued by the Respondent No.-9 to the Respondent - Treasury Officer, directing him for stoppage of payment of "Pension & Gratuity" to the petitioner permanently after 17- 02-2009; ii. Contained in Memo: - Pen - 17 - 644 dated 02-09- 2022 (Annexure-6) issued by the Respondent No. - 8 to The Respondent No. - 9, directing for stoppage of "Pension & Gratuity" of the petitioner permanently with effect from 17-02-2009 in view of State of Bihar's Resolution / Memo - 19 Ni. Go. Dated 17-02-2009 (Annexure-3); iii. Contained in Notice dated 11-01-2008 in Memo No 28 dated 14-01-2008 issued by the Respondents asking the petitioner to show cause under provisions of Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules as to why his "FULL PENSION" be permanently not stopped due to his conviction on 07-08-2007 in R.C. 43(A)/96 [Animal husbandry Scam Case] (Annexure-1); iv. Contained in Memo No. 19 Ni. Go. / Patna - 15 dated 17-02-2009 (Annexure-3), whereby a decision was taken for permanently stoppage of "Pension & Gratuity" of the petitioner in future, in view of his conviction on 31-07-2007 in R.C. 43(A)/96, the said decision was stated to have been taken under provisions of Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules; b. Mandamus or in nature thereof commanding / directing the Respondents to continue to make the payment of pension or at least the provisional pension (90%) to the petitioner, which he had been getting since the date of his retirement i.e., with effect from 01-02-1996, which he had got up to August, 2022 in view of various orders passed by this Hon'ble Court; c. Mandamus or in nature thereof commanding / directing the Respondents to continue to make the payment of pension and gratuity amount to the petitioner at least as per order dated 19-12-2018 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.269 of 2013 (Annexure-4) by the then Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Patel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitav K. Gupta; d. Further commanding / directing the Respondents to make the payments of arrears with interest at market rate;” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are :- 2025:JHHC:32519 3 2.1. The petitioner joined his service on 10.07.1960 in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar. 2.2. In the year 1995, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director (Poultry), Hotwar, Ranchi, in the Department of Animal Husbandry, from where he got superannuated on 31.01.1996. 2.3. Before retirement of the petitioner, his full pension was sanctioned and Pension Payment Order (P.P.O.) was issued to him, but the payment was delayed as the petitioner was detected by the Department to have involved in a “Fodder Scam” in the last week of month of February, 1996. 2.4. Being aggrieved of the delay in payment of the retiral dues, the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.3020 of 1997(R). In the said writ petition, the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 08.07.1998, directed the respondent - Government to pay his retiral dues with 10% interest and Rs.1,000/- as cost, part of which was complied with by the respondent, though only after filing of contempt case being M.J.C. No.190 of 1999 (R), as they have paid only G.P.F., Group Insurance, 90% of the pension with 10% interest thereon and Rs.1,000/- as cost. 2.5. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in four cases in “Animal Husbandry Scam” / “Fodder Scam”. He was convicted in some of the cases. Consequently, 10% Pension, Gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave have been withheld by the Government. The Criminal Appeal was preferred by this petitioner, in which order of suspension of sentence has been passed. The said Appeal is still pending. 2025:JHHC:32519 4 2.6. Being aggrieved by the non-payment of Full Gratuity, Earned Leave of 240 days and 10% of remaining pension / retiral dues etc., the petitioner filed another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.1293 of 2001. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2013. 2.7. The State of Bihar being aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Writ Court, filed a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.269 of 2013, in which the petitioner's pension and gratuity was stopped due to his conviction. The Letters Patent Court was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2018. The Division Bench also ruled that the petitioner would continue receiving 90% pension, but the unpaid 10% pension and gratuity would not be paid during the pendency of his Criminal Appeal. 2.8. In the month of August, 2022, full pension of the petitioner was stopped, which led to this application. 3. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the respondents have not complied with the order dated 19.12.2018 and petitioner's pension has not been paid. He also submits that the show-cause notice which was issued to the petitioner by the respondents is barred under Rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. He also submits that no opportunity of personal hearing was given by respondents to the petitioner before passing the order of stoppage of pension. He submits that the Resolution of the State of Bihar as contained in Memo dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) withholding the pension of the petitioner, was not brought in the earlier round of litigation. He submits that under which provision 2025:JHHC:32519 5 of law the order has been passed has not been mentioned in the order/ impugned order. He further submits that other similarly situated retired officials convicted in the Fodder Scam are still receiving pension, while the petitioner is being discriminated. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submits that the petitioner did not challenge the order which permanently stopped his pension and gratuity for many years showing latches on part of the petitioner. Despite this, the Accountant General mistakenly continued paying 90% provisional pension and even paid gratuity. He further submits that Bihar Government instructed the Accountant General to stop pension, citing the petitioner's conviction in a corruption case, which involves moral turpitude. He also submits that pension and gratuity were rightly forfeited as a natural result of his conviction. He further submits that a convicted person is not legally entitled to pension under the Pension Rules. 5. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the stoppage of payment of his pension and gratuity permanently after 17.02.2009, under the provisions of Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner further prays for payment of pension or at least provisional pension (90%), which he was getting since the date of his retirement i.e. w.e.f. 01.02.1996. He also claims payment of gratuity and pension amount as per the order dated 19.12.2018 passed in L.P.A. No.269 of 2013. 2025:JHHC:32519 6 7. Rules 43 (a) and 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, reads as follows:- “43. (a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of pension. The Provincial Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the Provincial Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of a pension under this rule, shall be final and conclusive. [(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 consulted before final orders are passed.” 8. Perusal of the aforesaid Pension Rules reveals that the said 2025:JHHC:32519 7 Rules provides that future good conduct is a sine qua non for grant of pension. Further, Rule 43 (b) mandates that the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specific period, is reserved with the State Government, in case of the pensioner being found guilty of committing grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government. 9. In the aforesaid context, it is pertinent to mention that the recovery aspect from pension can be related where there is pecuniary loss caused, but if the pensioner is guilty of grave misconduct in a judicial proceeding and if there is pecuniary loss by committing misconduct or negligence during his service, then the Government can withhold the pension. 10. In this case, admittedly the petitioner was involved in the “Animal Husbandry Scam” / “Fodder Scam”, which involves moral turpitude. He was convicted for six years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,80,000/-. As a result of the said conviction, 10% Pension, Gratuity and encashment of Earned Leave of the petitioner have been withheld by the Government earlier and in the month of August, 2022, full pension of the petitioner was stopped. 11. This is a case which involves grave misconduct. This Court is in agreement with the submission of learned senior counsel representing the petitioner that the Resolution of the State of Bihar as contained in Memo dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) withholding the pension of the petitioner, has not been brought in the earlier round of litigation, but not bringing the same to the notice of the Court is of no help to the petitioner. Further, it is not 2025:JHHC:32519 8 the case of any of the parties that the order is antedated. If some of the officer of the respondents have failed to bring to the notice of the Court about the order of the State, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the same. Before issuing the aforesaid order (Annexure-3), admittedly a notice was issued to the petitioner. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of VSNL Vs. Ajit Kumar Kar reported in (2008) 11 SCC 591, at para-46, held that a bonafide mistake does not confer any right on any party and it can be corrected. 12. Further, one of the submissions made by learned senior counsel to the effect of questioning the provision of law under which the order has been passed, is immaterial. Not mentioning or wrongly mentioning the provision of law under which the order has been passed, is not of much significance, if the law provides for passing such type of order, which has been passed. 13. Though the impugned order dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure- 3), whereby the pension of the petitioner was stopped, had been passed earlier but the same had not been brought to the notice of the Writ Court. 14. The order of the Hon’ble Division Bench directing the respondents to go on paying the pension, cannot be considered to be final in view of the subsequent order passed by the State withholding / cancelling the pension of the petitioner. Thus, this Court finds that the order of the State withholding his full pension was not tested before any Court and the Division Bench had passed the order to pay 90% pension, being ignorant of the earlier order / impugned order (Annexure-3). 2025:JHHC:32519 9 15. Rule 43 (a) as well as Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, are applicable on the facts of this case, as the conviction of the petitioner on a criminal charge, which involves moral turpitude cannot be said to be a good conduct as good conduct is a sine qua non for grant of pension. Further, as per Rule 43(a) of the Pension Rules, the Government can withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it, if the pensioner is convicted in serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. Admittedly, the petitioner is a convict in a case involving grave moral turpitude. Thus, on facts of this case, Rule 43 (a) of the Pension Rule, is applicable which provides for withholding or withdrawing of pension in case of conviction. 16. Having pondered over the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as the materials of this case, I am not inclined to allow this writ petition, finding no merit in the same. 17. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 09th October, 2025 Prashant. Cp-2