MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order of punishment dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Collector of Jamui district as also the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 28.8.2006 and to that extent, it would be relevant to quote paragraph no.1, 2 & 3 of the writ application, which reads as follows:—

“1. That by this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing of the order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 28.08.2006 communicated to the petitioner by Memo no: 2163 by which 75% of the pension has been withheld illegally though he gave a finding that the recovery can be made only after the petitioner is found guilty of alleged defalcation.

2. That petitioner also prays for quashing of the order of Collector contained in Memo No: 34 dated 14.01.2004 by which on the basis of illegal enquiry report directed the recover a sum of Rs. 3,52,018.98 from the petitioner with interest from the post of retirement benefits and has also denied the salary for alleged unauthorized absence.

3. That the petitioner also prays for direction upon the respondent to pay all the post retirement benefit as also the subsistence allowance which is due to the petitioner and any other relief/reliefs for which they are entitled as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has raised many issues but, the following two, which will go to the root of the matter, are as follows:—

(i) The disciplinary authority, namely, the Collector of the district has not considered the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to the service of enquiry report on the petitioner and, as such, the impugned order is non-speaking order.

(ii) Secondly, the appellate authority in fact has gone to enhance the punishment in the sense that he has also kept the recovery of the amount pending till judgment of the criminal case by making such recovery operative only in the event the petitioner being found convicted by the criminal court but, then, he has added a punishment by way of withholding of 75% of pension by going beyond order of punishment passed by the Collector of the district.

4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority firstly was not empowered to do so and secondly even if he had contemplated to do so, at least a show-cause notice was required for enhancing such punishment.

5. Mr. S.A. Alam, learned counsel for the State, while replying to the aforementioned submissions, has come out with a plea that the petitioner having deliberately defalcated the huge amount of government money, cannot be shown any leniency and the government can only take a compassionate view if the petitioner refunds the entire amount of loss/misappropriation made by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 3,52,018.98/- with interest as directed by the Collector in the order.

6. In the considered opinion of this court, while the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner must fail, inasmuch as, by now it is well settled that in case of agreement with the findings of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority is not required to record reasoned order. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit reported in AIR 1963 SC 1612.

7. However, the second aspect raised by the petitioner will be worth consideration and, for this purpose, this Court would firstly quote the contents of the impugned order passed by the Collector of the district, which reads as follows:—

^^lekgj.kky;] teqbZ

¼LFkkiuk 'kk[kk½

vkns'k

Jh tVk'kadj flag rRdkyhu ukthj teqbZ vapy dks ljdkjh jkf'k dk xcu djus ,oa mPpkf/kdkjh dh vkns'k dh vogsyuk djus vukf/kd`r :i ls dÙkZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds vkjksi ls bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 346 fnukad 9.8.98 }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk buds fo:) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pykus dk Hkh funs'k fn;k x;k gSA bl chp Jh tVk'ka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document