Vijay Laxmi vs State of Bihar and Others

Narayan Roy, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. This writ application is directed against the order dated 10.7.1995, as contained in annexure 1, and also the appellate order, as contained in annexure 3, whereby and whereunder punishment has been imposed upon the husband of the petitioner and the same has been affirmed in appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, the husband of the petitioner had superannuated on 31.5.1995, whereas the order of punishment was passed on 10.7.1995 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 14.7.1995, and, in that view of the matter, it is contended that after retirement of the husband of the petitioner, the order of punishment, which is subsequent to the date of retirement, would be a nullity. It is further contended that no proceeding in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has ever been initiated against the husband of the petitioner.

No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 1, and also the appellate order, as contained in annexure 3, are not sustainable in law, as the same have been passed much after retirement of the husband of the petitioner. In the result, this application is allowed and the orders impugned, as contained in annexures 1 and 3, are set aside, However, the State authorities will be at liberty to proceed with the matter against the petitioner in accordance with law.