AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the State.
Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the
order dated 22.09.2014. The Writ Application has been dismissed.
The learned Single Judge has refused to quash the proceeding under
Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the ground that the appellant
had already superannuated and the matter related to the year 2001,
much prior to the date of his superannuation.
In the narration of facts, what had transpired and had
been observed in the previous round of litigation has been extracted
and reproduced in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge. In
other words, this is not the first round of litigation which was initiated
before the learned Single Judge but is a continuance of the previous
directions issued in the departmental proceeding. It is also reflected
that a limited kind of remand was issued on the earlier occasion that
was to provide a copy of the enquiry report and then proceed. The
proceeding was initiated much much prior to the superannuation of
the present appellant. After superannuation, the proceeding continued
and the learned Single Judge rightly took note of the settled principle
of law rendered by a Full Bench which was the case of Shambhu
Saran Vs. State, 2002 (1) PLJR 665. There is no requirement for a
separate proceeding to be initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar
Pension Rules. If a proceeding had been initiated prior to
superannuation then automatically can be converted into a proceeding
under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and the same can be
continued and finality reached.
It was in this background that the learned Single Judge
did not find any infirmity with the proceeding and, therefore, refused
to entertain the Writ Application or provide any relief.
The law being what it is, no infirmity emerges in the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge which requires
rectification in appeal.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.