Shailendra Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2023
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge has committed error in remanding the
matter to hold inquiry insofar as charge no.1 read with initiation
of inquiry under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. It is
contended that there is no financial loss caused to the State
Government. Therefore, question of remanding the matter to
hold inquiry under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is
incorrect. It is also submitted that earlier in the inquiry, charge
no.1 was not proved. Therefore, question of holding inquiry or
remanding the matter to hold inquiry in respect of charge no.1 is
not correct. In support of the aforementioned contentions, he
Patna High Court L.P.A No.186 of 2020 dt.29-11-2023
4/19
has relied on unamended Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.
He has also cited three decisions, namely, (i) 2010 (3) PLJR 845
(Urmila Sharma @ Urmila Singh Vs. The State of Bihar through
the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Ors.), (ii)
2007 (3) BLJR 2972 (Bihar State Electricity Boad Versus
Sharda Prasad Sinha and Ors.) (paragraph-8), (iii) C.W.J.C.
No.17198 of 2014 (Dhirendra Prasad Shrivastava Versus The
State of Bihar and others) decided on 17.10.2023 and further
relied on decision of L.P.A. No.1682 of 2018 (The State of
Bihar and others Versus Kumar Ajit Singh) passed in C.W.J.C.
No.18055 of 2018 decided on 06.02.2023.