2025:JHHC:38511-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 193 of 2025 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 5. The Additional Collector, Bokaro 6. Sri Binod Chandra Jha, Departmental Enquiry Officer, Ranchi ….. Appellants Versus Bishnu Kumar, S/o Late Mahadeo Ram, R/o Village, P.O. & P.S.- Bhawnathpur, District-Garhwa, at present-Rashmi Niwas, West End Park, P.O. & P.S.-Hehal, District-Ranchi ….. Respondent ----- CORAM HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellants: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent: - ----- 02/22.12.2025 I.A. No. 1555 of 2025: 1. For the reasons stated in the application, we find sufficient cause having been carved out which prevented the appellants from filing the present appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Accordingly, the delay of 148 days crept up in filing of the present appeal is condoned. 2. The present interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 193 of 2025: 3. Heard. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State against the order passed by the learned Writ Court on 12.08.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 7208 of 2016. 5. We have perused the impugned order and found that the writ petitioner/respondent was alleged to have recommended the grant of 2025:JHHC:38511-DB 2 compensation to two persons illegally as they were not found to be eligible as per the report of the committee submitted on 31.03.2007. However, no action on the basis of the so-called misconduct was taken against the writ petitioner-respondent. Subsequently, he retired on 31.07.2011 and admittedly the departmental proceeding was initiated thereafter on 09.05.2016. The initiation of such proceeding was challenged before the learned Writ Court on the ground that the same was not maintainable as per the provisions as contained in Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which reads as under: “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” 6. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would clearly indicate that in order to attract the applicability of Rule 43(b), the alleged misconduct must have been committed by the concerned employee before four years from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. 7. The said issue has already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, taking an identical view, has observed as under: 2025:JHHC:38511-DB 3 “So far as the second type of cases are concerned the proof of grave misconduct on the part of the Government servant concerned during his service tenure will have to be culled out by the revisional authority from the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings which might have taken place during his service tenure or from departmental proceedings which may be initiated even after his retirement in such type of cases. But such departmental proceedings will have to comply with the requirements of Rule 43(b). Consequently a retired government servant can be found guilty of grave misconduct during his service career pursuant to the departmental proceedings conducted against him even after his retirement, but such proceedings could be initiated in connection with only such misconduct which might have taken place within 4 years of the initiation of such departmental proceedings against him. In the present case, the respondent retired on 31.1.1993 and the show cause notice was issued on the ground of grave misconduct on 27.09.1993 and not on the ground that service record of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory. It was issued by the State Government as sanctioning authority. It had, therefore to be read with Rule 43(b). Such notice therefore, could cover any misconduct if committed within 4 years prior to 27.09.1993 meaning thereby it should have been committed during the period from 26.09.1989 upto 31.01.1993 when respondent retired. Only in case of such a misconduct, departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent under Rule 43(b). In such proceedings, if he was found guilty of misconduct he could have been properly proceeded against under Rule 139(a) and (b). On the facts of the present case it must be held, agreeing with the High Court that the notice dated 27.09.1993 invoking powers under Rule 139(a) and (b) was issued wholly on the ground of alleged past misconduct and was not based on the ground that service record of the respondent was not thoroughly satisfactory. So far as that ground was concerned, on a conjoint reading of Rule 43(b) and Rule 139(a) there is no escape from the conclusion that as the alleged misconduct was committed by the respondent prior to 4 years from the date on which show cause notice dated 27.09.1993 was issued, the appellant authority had no power to invoke Rule 139(a) and (b) against the respondent on the ground of proved misconduct. Consequently, it had to be held that proceedings under Rule 139 were wholly incompetent. The High Court was equally justified in quashing the final order dated 13.12.1993 as there is no proof of such a misconduct. No 2025:JHHC:38511-DB 4 question of remanding the proceedings under Rule 139(a) and (b) would survive as the alleged grave misconduct could not be established in any departmental proceedings after expiry of four years from 1986- 87 as such proceedings would be clearly barred by Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(ii). Consequently, the show cause notice dated 27.09.1993 will have to be treated as stillborn and ineffective from its inception. Such a notice cannot be resorted to for supporting any fresh proceedings by way of remand. For all these reasons no case is made for our interference in this appeal. In the result appeal fails and is dismissed. There is no order as to costs” 8. As observed above, the alleged misconduct took place on 29.03.2007 whereas the writ petitioner/respondent retired on 31.07.2011. However, the departmental proceeding was initiated on 09.05.2016 i.e. after nine years from the date of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, as rightly has been held by the learned Writ Court, the same could not have been initiated as being time barred. 9. Consequently, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.) (RAJESH SHANKAR, J.) 22.12.2025 Satish/Vikas/