Allowed¶40

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CWJC/1325/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-retirement departmental proceeding; Rule 43(b) Bihar Pension Rules 1950; proviso (a)(i)(ii)(iii); four-year limitation on instituting proceedings after retirement; charge memo set aside; Prapatra-Ka; ex-parte inquiry by Dy. S.P. Dalsingsarai; Samastipur District Departmental Inquiry No. 42 of 2021; Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021; enquiry period July 2015 to May 2017 versus retirement 31.01.2015; payment of withheld benefits; Patna High Court CWJC No. 1325 of 2022; Justice Dr. Anshuman; decided 27-01-2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-1) set aside with respect to the petitioner, and the concerned respondent authority directed to pay all benefits relating to the petitioner not paid due to the issuance of the charge memo. ¶40

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge memo (Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021, Annexure-1) initiating Samastipur District Departmental Inquiry No. 42 of 2021 in respect of events of July 2015 to May 2017 is sustainable, given that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2015 and the alleged irregularities fall outside his period of posting. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The charge memo is not sustainable in the eye of law: the enquiry related to the period July 2015 to May 2017, whereas the petitioner had already retired in January 2015, so the alleged events fall outside his service.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

In light of Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i)(ii)&(iii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, which the Court described as very clear, together with the facts and circumstances, the Court found that the State had no defence and the belatedly initiated proceeding could not stand.

¶27

Key takeaways

Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-1), issued from the office of the Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga (Respondent no.3), is set aside with respect to the petitioner.ratio¶39
The concerned respondent authority is directed to pay all benefits relating to the petitioner, if any, which have not been paid to him due to the issuance of the charge memo.ratio¶39
Observation that the writ petition, filed in the year 2022, remained unanswered: no counter affidavit was filed even after order no.3 dated 16.12.2025 directed the State's counsel to file one within four weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Dr. Anshuman, J.), Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1325 of 2022, decided 27-01-2026: Writ petition allowed. Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 issued by the Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga (Respondent no.3), initiating the belated and time-barred Samastipur District Departmental Inquiry No. 42 of 2021 against retired police personnel Bhola Prasad Choudhary and issuing Prapatra-Ka under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 on the basis of an ex-parte inquiry by the Dy. S.P., Dalsingsarai, was set aside. The enquiry concerned the period July 2015 to May 2017, whereas the petitioner had already retired on 31.01.2015; the proceeding was initiated about six years after retirement, and the Court applied Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i)(ii)&(iii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, describing the provision as very clear and finding the State had no defence. The concerned respondent authority was directed to pay all benefits relating to the petitioner not paid due to the issuance of the charge memo. No counter affidavit was filed despite order no.3 dated 16.12.2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1325 of 2022

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary Son of Late Chhotan Choudhary, Resident of Village- Bhadauni, P.S. and District - Nawada.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga.

¶9

The Inquiry Officer-cum-City S.P., Darbhanga.

¶10

The Presenting Officer cum Dy. S.P. (Traffic), Darbhanga.

¶11

The S.P., Samastipur.

¶12

The then Dy. S.P., Dalsingsarai-cum-Chairman, Inquiry Committee, Dalsingsarai, District - Samastipur.

¶13

... ... Respondent/s

¶14

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Barun Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. N.H. Khan (SC-1) Mr. Fazle Karim (AC to SC-1) ======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 27-01-2026

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 issued from the office of the Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga (Respondent no.3) by which a belated and time barred Samastipur District Departmental Inquiry No. 42 of 2021 has been initiated against the petitioner and Prapatra-Ka has been issued under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 on the

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026 2/5

¶21

basis of ex-parte inquiry conducted by the Dy. S.P., Dalsingsarai.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge memo (Annexure-1) is itself is the defence of the petitioner. He submits that in para 1 of the said charge memo, it is indicated that the petitioner was posted as Branch Incharge from 25.05.2010 to 10.10.2014 and thereafter, retired on 31.01.2015. Counsel further submits that the register which was subject to enquiry was relating to distribution between July 2015 to May 2017 and during that period, the irregularities and discrepancies have been found. Counsel further submits that he has two points for his defence. Firstly, he was posted in the said Branch from 25.05.2010 to 10.10.2014 and the wrong was alleged to be done between July 2015 to May 2017. Therefore, he submits that the alleged wrong was not during his period of posting, rather, he was already retired on 31.01.2015 itself. The next point which is legal according to him is that after six years of the petitioner's retirement and more than seven years of his posting at Samastipur police line, the departmental proceeding has been initiated which is in complete violation of Rule 43(b) proviso (a) (i) and (ii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 of Chapter III. He submits that in the light of the submissions made

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026 3/5

¶24

on both the points i.e. on law and on facts, the present charge memo is not sustainable in the eye of law and therefore, the same be set aside.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that a short time may be granted to file the counter affidavit in this case.

¶26

Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2022, but no counter affidavit has been filed. It further transpires to this Court that vide order no.3 dated 16.12.2025, learned counsel for the State was directed to file a counter affidavit in this case within four weeks. But till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.

¶27

After appreciation of the facts and law, it transpires that the State has no defence at all. In light of the present facts and circumstances, as well as the law which is very clear, namely Rule 43(b) proviso (a)(i) (ii) & (iii) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the same is quoted hereinbelow as under:-

¶28

“43 (b) The Appointment authority of the post held at the time of retirement 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

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026

¶30

4/5

¶31

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:

¶32

Provided that-

¶33

(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment:

¶34

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government;

¶35

(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and

¶36

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; ”

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.1325 of 2022 dt.27-01-2026 5/5

¶38

Upon bare perusal of the provision as well as the

¶39

factual matrix that the enquiry was made for the period between July 2015 to May 2017, whereas, the petitioner was already retired on January 2015, this Court is of the firm view that the charge memo is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, the Memo No. 2352 dated 27.10.2021 (Annexure-1) issued from the office of the Disciplinary Authority cum Inspector General of Police, Mithila Region, Darbhanga (Respondent no.3) is hereby set aside, with respect to the petitioner. The concerned respondent authority is directed to pay all the benefits relating to the petitioner, if any, which have not been paid to him due to the issuance of the charge memo.

¶40

Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands allowed.

¶41

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶42

Divyansh/-

¶43

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	29/01/2026
Transmission Date	NA

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola Prasad Choudhary @ Bhola Choudhary v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Zafrullah Ansari Vs Sri Pankaj Agrawal, The Secretary

Dr. Poonam Sagar Vs The State of Bihar

Shib Shankar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, General Administration

Sanjay Kumar Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pinki Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Avinash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar