Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

The Patna High Court delivered this judgment on 21 January 2021 in a writ petition filed by a retired Statistical Supervisor from the Planning and Development Department of Bihar. The case revolved around the denial of pension, gratuity, and leave encashment after his retirement, following a departmental proceeding linked with a vigilance trap case.

The petitioner was trapped by the Vigilance Bureau in 2014 while allegedly accepting a bribe of ₹8,000. He was arrested, suspended, and later released on bail. While the criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act was still pending, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings. On superannuation in August 2015, the departmental inquiry was converted under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. In 2017, the disciplinary authority passed an order withholding 100% of his pension and gratuity. The appellate authority confirmed this decision in 2018.

The retired employee challenged these orders, claiming:

• The inquiry was conducted without examining witnesses or presenting documents.
• The presenting officer failed to prove the charges; instead, the inquiry officer presumed guilt.
• He was denied provisional pension despite being entitled under Rule 43(c).
• Withholding of gratuity was contrary to law, especially in light of the Full Bench judgment in Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2018), which held that gratuity cannot be withheld merely due to pendency of a criminal case.

The State defended its decision, arguing that the inquiry was fair and the petitioner had admitted receiving money. It claimed that “pension” includes gratuity and hence both were lawfully withheld.

The High Court carefully examined the records. It noted that:

• The inquiry was perfunctory—no witnesses were examined, no documents were produced, and the presenting officer did not discharge his duty.
• The inquiry officer simply assumed guilt and shifted the burden on the petitioner to prove innocence, which violated natural justice.
• The appellate authority also failed to deal with the petitioner’s grounds, especially the applicability of Arvind Kumar Singh.
• Rule 43(c) requires payment of provisional pension when proceedings are pending, which was denied in this case.

The Court held that the orders withholding full pension and gratuity were unsustainable. It quashed both the disciplinary and appellate orders. However, it gave liberty to the department to restart the inquiry afresh from the stage of evidence, to be completed within four months. Meanwhile, the petitioner was declared entitled to provisional pension from the date of retirement (31 August 2015) till the disciplinary order (18 July 2017), to be calculated and paid within two months.

This judgment highlights that while corruption allegations are serious, disciplinary proceedings must be conducted fairly, with evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Fairness in disciplinary proceedings: Government employees facing corruption charges cannot be presumed guilty. Evidence must be led, and the presenting officer must discharge his responsibility.
• Right to provisional pension: Even if proceedings are pending, provisional pension must be released. Denial causes undue hardship to retirees.
• Gratuity protection: As clarified in Arvind Kumar Singh, gratuity cannot be withheld merely because of pending proceedings.
• Administrative accountability: Departments must follow procedure strictly; otherwise, their punitive orders risk being quashed in court.
• Balanced approach: While allowing departmental liberty to restart inquiry, the Court ensured immediate financial relief through provisional pension.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision

• Was the departmental inquiry valid?
  — No. The inquiry was perfunctory, conducted without evidence, and based on presumption of guilt.
• Could the government withhold 100% pension and gratuity?
  — No. Such withholding without proper inquiry and contrary to the Full Bench ruling was illegal.
• Was the petitioner entitled to provisional pension?
  — Yes. Under Rule 43(c), provisional pension must be paid during pendency of proceedings.
• Could the writ court reappreciate evidence?
  — The Court clarified it did not reappreciate evidence but quashed the orders for failure of procedure and violation of natural justice.

Judgments Referred by Parties

• Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 933 (Full Bench, Patna High Court)

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court

• Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 (scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings)
• Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2018 (2) PLJR 933

Case Title

Ram Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6945 of 2017

Citation(s)

2021(1)PLJR 542

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• For the petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate
• For the respondents: Mr. Harish Kr., GP-8

Link to Judgment

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNjk0NSMyMDE3IzEjTg==-9qwmtAmDu–ak1–Y=

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.