2025:JHHC:31603 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3865 of 2015 -- Naresh Kumar Singh, son of Shri Siya Lal Manda, resident of B-24, Bandhu Nagar, Birsa Chowk, P.O.- Hinoo, P.S.-Doranda, District- Ranchi. ....Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand though its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District- Ranchi. 2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi. 3. Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004, District-Ranchi. ......Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, A.C to G.P.-III -- 11/09.10.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for quashing the punishment order as contained in Memo No. 3396 dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure-6) issued under the signature of respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of withholding of 15% from his Pension. 3. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a sole question that the order of punishment (Annexure-6) is beyond the jurisdiction as enshrined in Rule 4B(b) proviso (a)(ii). He submits that though in the impugned order there is no reference with regard to the cause of action of allegation, but from the enquiry report (Annexure-4), it is clear that the cause of action, for which the allegation has been levelled and 2025:JHHC:31603 2 punishment has been imposed was in relation to the alleged allegation committed in December, 2004 and since the petitioner has retired in the year 2013; as such, in view of the aforesaid Rule 43(b) of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Pension Rules; the order of punishment does not have any legs to stand in the eyes of law. He further draws attention of this Court towards charge-sheet, wherein a reference has been given with regard to CBI Case but he submits that the CBI Case has been quashed by this Court which is evident from Annexure-7 to I.A. No. 10595 of 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents though tries to defend the order of punishment, but could not demonstrate any chit of paper that the charge-sheet was issued during the service tenure of the petitioner and the law is no more res-integra and even the provision of Jharkhand Pension Rule is very clear that for any alleged offence, the State Government is empowered to initiate any proceeding for any pecuniary loss caused to the State Government if the petitioner is found in departmental proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government; however in the proviso to Section 43(b) of Clause a(ii), it has been given that there shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. 5. In the instant case, admittedly the alleged cause of action occurred in the year 2004 and the charge- sheet has been issued on 06.12.2013 which is pursuant to superannuation of the petitioner. Even otherwise, on the one hand, the CBI Case was quashed by this Court and on the other hand, the base of departmental proceeding was CBI vide Memo no. 2025:JHHC:31603 3 333 dated 04.05.2012 and at that time the petitioner was in service, so the respondents were having enough opportunity to initiate the proceeding but they did not choose to do so and after the retirement they initiated the proceeding under Rule 43(b) of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Pension Rules after his retirement that is certainly beyond the provision. 6. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to give entire retiral benefits within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the amount which has been deducted pursuant to the impugned order; the same shall also be refunded within aforesaid stipulated period. It goes without saying that if the aforesaid amount is not paid to the petitioner within the stipulated period, petitioner would be entitled for 7% simple rate of interest from the date of deduction till the date of actual payment. 7. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 9th October, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 4/11/2025