Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the petitioner, a government employee under the Department of Prohibition, Excise, and Registration in Bihar, was previously subjected to disciplinary proceedings that led to his compulsory retirement. The initial disciplinary action was taken due to a mistake in calculating stamp duty, which allegedly caused revenue loss to the state.
The petitioner challenged this punishment through a writ petition (CWJC No. 4509 of 2016). The Patna High Court observed that the mistake was bonafide and not intentional. Additionally, the inquiry committee itself had recommended only a minor penalty. Consequently, the Court quashed the compulsory retirement and asked the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment.
Despite the Court’s directive, the department issued another order of compulsory retirement. This second order was also challenged by the petitioner (CWJC No. 13737 of 2016), and the Court once again set it aside on the ground that it was passed by an incompetent authority. The Court permitted the government to proceed further, but only as per the legal procedure.
Following this, the government reinstated the petitioner but issued an order stating that the period during which the petitioner was not working would be treated as suspension and only 75% of the salary for that period would be paid.
The petitioner filed a fresh writ petition (CWJC No. 8332 of 2019) challenging this latest order. He argued that, according to Rule 13(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, when an order of compulsory retirement is set aside by a court and the government decides not to hold any further inquiry, the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for the entire period.
The Court agreed with the petitioner. It held that since the earlier order of compulsory retirement was invalidated by the Court, and no further disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the period of forced absence should be treated as if the employee was on duty. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and benefits for the entire period of absence.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.10.2018 was set aside, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with law.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment is significant for government servants in Bihar and across India. It reaffirms that employees cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their rightful dues if disciplinary actions against them are found to be unlawful or mishandled. The decision underscores that if a court invalidates a dismissal or compulsory retirement and no further inquiry is held, the employee must be treated as continuously on duty and entitled to full back wages.
For government departments, this serves as a caution against exceeding jurisdiction or violating procedural norms in disciplinary matters.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period he was out of service due to compulsory retirement.
- Decision: Yes. As no further inquiry was conducted post-reinstatement and the compulsory retirement was quashed by court order, Rule 13(3) applies. The petitioner must be paid full salary.
- Whether the period of forced absence could be deemed as suspension.
- Decision: No. The Court held that in the absence of a suspension order and further proceedings, the petitioner was deemed to be on duty.
- Whether the department’s order restricting pay to 75% was valid.
- Decision: No. The order was set aside for being contrary to Rule 13(3) of the 2005 Rules.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- CWJC No. 4509 of 2016 (related to first quashing of compulsory retirement)
- CWJC No. 13737 of 2016 (related to second quashing of punishment due to lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title
Arbind Kumar Khan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
CWJC No. 8332 of 2019
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 191
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Rajni Kant Jha — For the Petitioner
- Mr. Lalit Kishore (Advocate General) — For the Respondents
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjODMzMiMyMDE5IzEjTg==-Zv7R5Rqe36s=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
