Ramjee Prasad @ Ramji Prasad vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

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

The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs :-

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Water Resources Department in the year 1979. Subsequently his services were transferred to the Rural Works Department.

The petitioner was made accused in an F.I.R. bearing Vigilance P.S. Case no.28 of 2013 registered under sections 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the allegations relating to the petitioner being that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

A departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner with the memo of charge having been served on him on 18.2.2014. The proceedings continued with the order of punishment of dismissal from service being passed against the petitioner on 24.3.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 25.6.2015.

The petitioner moved this Court challenging his dismissal as also the order rejecting his appeal vide CWJC no.5655 of 2015. The writ application came to be allowed by order dated 26.2.2019. The order of the appellate authority dated 25.6.2015 was quashed and a direction was given to the appellate authority to consider the specific assertion made on behalf of the petitioner with respect to not having been given the opportunity of hearing in the proceedings.

It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the order dated 26.2.2019 passed by this Court, the petitioner moved before the appellate authority, who after considering the petitioner’s case passed order dated 16.5.2019 observing that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was legal requirement to re-examine the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner including the family property, the title decree, the income tax returns etc. Setting aside the order of dismissal dated 24.3.2015, the Engineer-in-Chief was directed to go into the evidence and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months.

It may be stated here that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.1.2017.

The disciplinary authority was pleased to pass order dated 18.3.2020 contained in memo no.1057 dated 9.6.2020 holding that the allegations levelled by the Vigilance Investigation Bureau against the petitioner that he was in possession of disproportionate assets were proved and it was directed that the order of dismissal dated 24.3.2015 does not require to be interfered with.

The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.3.2020 dismissing him from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 2.9.2021 by the appellate authority.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.3.2020 contained in memo no.1057 dated 9.6.2020 by filing CWJC no.12432 of 2021. The appeal having been rejected during pendency of the writ application, the order dated 2.9.2021 passed by the appellate authority was also challenged.

The writ application came to be allowed by order dated 25.2.2025 setting aside the order dated 2.9.2021 passed by the appellate authority and relegating the matter afresh to the appellate authority to consider the grounds raised in the memo of appeal preferred by the petitioner and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.

The petitioner thereafter filed a representation before the appellate authority which came to be rejected by order dated 25.7.2025 of the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works Department, Bihar contained in memo no.8244 dated 30.7.2025.

It is against the order of dismissal dated 18.3.2020 (memo no.1057 dated 9.6.2020) as also the order dated 25.7.2025 (memo no.8244 dated 30.7.2025) of the appellate authority that the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application for the reliefs as stated herein above.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there being no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.1.2017, the appellate authority by its order dated 16.5.2019 set aside the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority by its order dated 18.3.2020 came to reaffirm the earlier order of dismissal dated 24.3.2015 passed against the petitioner. The petitioner having retired from service with effect from 31.1.2017 and there being no relationship of master and the servant between the respondents and the petitioner, no order of dismissal nor any order reaffirming the order of dismissal could have been passed on 18.3.2020 as has been done by the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority in the instant case. Further, a perusal of the order of the appellate authority would show that the appellate authority while passing the order dated 16.5.2019 was of the opinion that the charges against the petitioner required to be looked into afresh and the evidence including the documents with respect to the partition of the property in the family, the title decree, income tax returns filed by the wife of the petitioner as also deeds of sale and the value written on the same were required to be looked into and their genuineness examined. Inspite of this specific observation of the appellate authority, on perusal of the order dated 18.3.2020 reaffirming the earlier order of dismissal dated 24.3.2015, it would transpire that the disciplinary authority has not looked into any of the documents.

It was also submitted that the order dated 18.3.2020 was passed by an incompetent authority. Further the appellate authority having accepted the contention of the petitioner with regard to some of the items, the quantum/amount of the disproportionate assets had come down from the earlier figure to Rs.22.92 lacs. It is submitted that for these reasons, the order of punishment impugned herein as also the order of the appellate authority are not sustainable and thus the same be set aside and the writ application be allowed.

The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It was submitted that the Vigilance P.S. Case no.28 of 2013 came to be registered against the petitioner under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the allegations of the petitioner having amassed assets beyond his known sources of income. The petitioner was also proceeded against in a departmental proceeding under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and a memo of charge was served on him. Taking into consideration the petitioner’s reply, the departmental enquiry ended in an order of dismissal being passed against the petitioner on 24.3.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 25.6.2015 against which he moved this Court in CWJC no.5655 of 2015.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ application was allowed and the order of the appellate authority was set aside in view of the violation of principles of natural justice, however the appellate authority i.e. the Principal Secretary was directed to pass orders afresh. The appellate authority set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority after taking all the materials on record into consideration, by order dated 18.3.2020 imposed the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which stood rejected by order dated 2.9.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out any procedural irregularity nor any illegality in the order of punishment of dismissal or the order rejecting his appeal. As such, there is no merit in the instant writ application.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

Bereft of unnecessary details, it may be stated here that the first order of dismissal came to be passed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding on 24.3.2015. The appeal preferred by the petitioner having been rejected by order dated 25.6.2015, the petitioner challenged the same in CWJC no.5655 of 2015. This Court by its order dated 26.2.2019 was pleased to partly allow the writ petition by setting aside the order of the appellate authority dated 25.6.2015 on the ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice and the points raised by the petitioner in his appeal had not been considered by the appellate authority. This Court directed the Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar to pass orders within the time fixed.

The appellate authority by its order dated 16.5.2019 set aside the order of the disciplinary authority further observing that the charges against the petitioner required to be looked into afresh and the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner also required to be examined. The documents related to partition of property in the family, the title decree, the income tax returns filed by the wife of the petitioner, sale deeds etc.

At the cost of repetition, it may be noted here that in the meantime the petitioner had superannuated from service on 31.1.2017 and thus there was no relationship of master and a servant between the respondents and the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court, even if the proceedings which was already going on against the petitioner had to be continued, it could only be proceeded by converting the same under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The orders which could be passed could be that of revising the order relating to pension under Rule 139 or withholding or withdrawing the pension or part of it under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

Nevertheless, on the order of dismissal having been set aside and the matter having been remanded to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority came out with the order of punishment dated 18.3.2020 affirming the order of punishment dated 24.3.2015 passed against the petitioner or in other words dismissing the petitioner from service. Even the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18.3.2020 was rejected on 2.9.2021.

It may be mentioned here that no order of dismissal could have been passed by the respondents against the petitioner on 18.3.2020, the petitioner already having superannuated from service on 31.1.2017.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of the Court, the order dated 18.3.2020 passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Bihar, Patna dismissing the petitioner from service as also the order dated 2.9.2021 of the Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, being unsustainable are both hereby set aside.

The writ application is allowed with all consequential benefits.