The Patna High Court has set aside a disciplinary order that forfeited 50% of a retired government employee’s pension, holding that the decision was a non-speaking order passed without considering the employee’s defence. The Court emphasized that even in post-retirement proceedings under the Bihar Pension Rules, authorities must apply an independent mind, deal with the reply to the second show-cause notice, and record clear reasons before imposing any penalty. The matter has been remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of the judgment.

Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

This case concerns a retired Mines Department official (the “petitioner”) who had faced both criminal allegations and departmental proceedings during service. In 2014, the petitioner was dismissed from service following an enquiry. That dismissal was later set aside by the High Court in 2017 because the enquiry did not comply with the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. A Division Bench in 2018 affirmed the Single Judge’s decision to remand the matter, noting that because the petitioner had retired in October 2017, any fresh action would have to follow the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Acting on the remand, the Department restarted the matter under Rule 139C of the Pension Rules. A fresh enquiry culminated in an enquiry report dated 2 January 2019 concluding that the charges stood proved. A second show-cause notice dated 3 January 2019 was issued; the petitioner filed a reply. On 20 March 2019, the Additional Secretary passed a fresh order: (i) cancelling the earlier dismissal order dated 28 March 2014, and (ii) forfeiting 50% of the petitioner’s pension prospectively, while treating the period between the original dismissal (28 March 2014) and superannuation (31 October 2017) as suspension—payable only at the subsistence rate but countable for pension.

The petitioner challenged this 2019 order. Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary authority failed to consider his reply to the second show-cause notice and did not discuss his defence to each charge; the order contained no reasons on why pension forfeiture was justified. He also contended that there was no independent appreciation of evidence; the authority merely adopted the enquiry report’s conclusions. In support, counsel cited precedent stressing that findings in disciplinary proceedings must be based on evidence and accompanied by clear reasons.

The Mines Department defended the order, highlighting the gravity of allegations—disproportionate assets and alleged connivance with traders to restart illegal stone crushers—submitting that the enquiry officer’s findings were adequate and that writ jurisdiction should not be used to re-appreciate evidence.

Justice Mohit Kumar Shah examined the 20 March 2019 order in detail. The Court noted that the order merely narrates the litigation history and the procedural steps (appointment of enquiry officer, issuance of notices, receipt of reply). Crucially, it does not engage with the petitioner’s defence to the enquiry report, nor does it give reasons for imposing the drastic penalty of forfeiting half of the pension. In other words, the decision is unreasoned and reflects non-application of mind.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, the Court reiterated that administrative and quasi-judicial orders affecting rights must be reasoned. Show-cause proceedings must be conducted with an open mind; authorities must demonstrate that they have considered the reply and the relevant facts. A “rubber-stamp” order is legally infirm. The Court held that failure to consider the defence violates the principles of natural justice and vitiates the penalty.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the 2019 order but granted liberty to the Department to proceed afresh under law and pass a reasoned order within three months. The Court also clarified that the effect of the quashed punishment would abide by the outcome of the fresh proceedings. The writ petition was allowed.

In essence, the High Court did not rule on the merits of the charges; it focused on the legality of the decision-making process. The message to departments is clear: when imposing pension-related penalties after retirement, authorities must (a) supply the enquiry report, (b) consider the reply, (c) record cogent reasons showing independent evaluation, and (d) pass a speaking order that can withstand judicial review.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• For government departments: Pension forfeiture is a serious civil consequence. Even where enquiries find charges proved, the final order must independently evaluate the employee’s reply and record reasons. Non-speaking orders will be struck down and may delay finality.
• For retired employees: If a post-retirement penalty order under the Bihar Pension Rules fails to discuss your defence or lacks reasons, it is open to challenge. This judgment reaffirms the right to a fair, reasoned decision even after superannuation.
• For public administration: Reasoned orders enhance transparency and trust. They ensure that penalties are not imposed mechanically and that decision-makers are accountable.
• For ongoing vigilance/disciplinary actions: Authorities must balance anti-corruption objectives with procedural fairness. Fair process does not shield wrongdoing; it ensures that penalties rest on defensible reasoning.

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

• Whether a disciplinary authority can impose pension forfeiture through a non-speaking order without addressing the employee’s reply to the second show-cause notice.
  Decision: No. The order must show application of mind to the defence and give reasons. The impugned order was set aside as unreasoned and violative of natural justice (non-consideration of defence and absence of reasons).
• Whether failure to record reasons can be cured by general references to the enquiry record.
  Decision: No. A final order cannot be a mere formality; it must expressly deal with material contentions and provide cogent, clear, and succinct reasons. Merely reciting procedural history is insufficient.
• Appropriate relief when the penalty order is vitiated for want of reasons.
  Decision: Quash the penalty and remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh, reasoned order within a stipulated time (three months), keeping in view the governing pension rules.

Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)

• Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2017 (3) PLJR 500.
• Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570.
• Obaidur Rahman v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (4) PLJR 451.
• Meena Pratap & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2019 (2) PLJR 209.
• Shailesh Kumar Ojha v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2011 (4) PLJR 106.

Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)

• Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 — On the need for an open mind in show-cause and the impermissibility of predetermined conclusions; orders must address replies and be reasoned.
• Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 — Consolidated principles on recording reasons in administrative/quasi-judicial decisions; insistence on accountability and transparency.
• Obaidur Rahman v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2009 (4) PLJR 451 — Quashing orders for failure to consider defence and record reasons, amounting to violation of natural justice.

Case Title

Petitioner v. State of Bihar & Others (Mines & Geology Department)

Case Number

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22422 of 2019 (Patna High Court)

Citation(s)

2021(1) PLJR 804

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah.

Names of Advocates and Who They Appeared For

• For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
• For the State (Respondent): Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, AC to GP-3
• For the Mines Department (Respondents): Mr. Naresh Kumar Dikshit, Advocate; Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate.

Link to Judgment

MTUjMjI0MjIjMjAxOSMxI04=-zuvH2TONgkE=

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.