1. Heard Mr. Amit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Alok, learned Standing Counsel No.7 for the State.

2. With consent of the parties this writ petition has been considered with a view to its final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.3919 dated 7.3.2013 passed by the State Government in its General Administration Department, whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of deduction of 5% from his pension for a period of 10 years. A copy of the order is impugned at Annexure-15 and even the review preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the State Government vide order bearing Memo No.11536 dated 12.7.2013 a copy of which has been placed on record vide Annexure ‘L’ to the counter affidavit.

4. The charge-sheet is enclosed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition and charges the petitioner, who at the relevant time held the post of a Special Land Acquisition Officer, of altering the nature of several plots of land which were put under acquisition, by holding it to be of a residential character. The petitioner refuted the charge and the matter led to an enquiry, the report of which is present at Annexure-2. The Enquiry Officer who in the present case is the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt and that the explanation given by the petitioner can be accepted.

5. The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the report leading to a re-enquiry in the matter and which 2nd report is present at Annexure-3 dated 22.4.2010. The Commissioner-cum-Enquiry Officer reiterated his previous opinion that there were insufficient evidence to prove the charge. At this stage the file moved apparently for dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner which is manifest from Annexures 4 and 5. The situation yet did not satisfy the Disciplinary Authority leading to a 3rd enquiry, which report is present at Annexure-7. The enquiry report concludes as follows in paragraphs 7 and 8:

^^7- mijksDr of.kZr vfHkys[k ,oa vH;kosnu ds vkyksd esa] fu"d"kZ ds rkSj ij fuEukafdr ckrsa mHkj dj lkeus vkrh gS%&

¼d½ izlaxk/khu Hkwfe dk Lo:Ik okLrfod rkSj ij 1987 esa D;k Fkk] bldk vkdyu vFkok HkkSfrd lR;kiu] orZeku es fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA

¼[k½ vfHkys[k ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jh misUnz >k }kjk lefiZr fd;k x;k izkjafHkd izkDdyu ftlesa fd 4-78 ,dM+ Hkwfe dks vkoklh; oxhZd`r fd;k x;k] =qfViw.kZ Fkk] ftls le; jgrs lq/kkj dj fn;k x;k] ftlds dkj.k ljdkj dks jktLo dh {kfr ugha gqbZA

¼x½ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh esa izLrqrhdj.k inkf/kdkjh dk dFku] ftl ij Li"V earO; dh vis{kk dh x;h gS] xfBr vkjksi ij gh vk/kkfjr Fkk] ftl ij mHk; i{kksa dks lquus ds i'pkr uSlfxZd U;k; dk ikyu djrs gq, tkap] inkf/kdkjh }kjk dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh x;hA

8- vuqjks/k gksxk fd mijksDr ds vkyksd esa ;Fkksfpr dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;sA**

6. In no uncertain terms the Enquiry Officer has mentioned that it was not possible to assess the physical character of the land in the year 1987 and even if the assessment made by the petitioner in respect of 4.78 acres of land as residential was found defective but the error was corrected within time and as a result whereof there was no revenue loss to the State.

7. The 3rd report is dated 5.9.2011 and in the meanwhile the petitioner superannuated on 31.7.2011. In these circumstances the Principal Secretary very rightly opined on 5.12.2011 vide Annexure-9 that the records be consigned after obtaining approval of the Chief Minister but soon thereafter there was a change in mind and the Principal Secretary on the same set of facts, now suggested that the petitioner should be visited with penalty of 5% deduction from his pension for a period of 10 years.

8. This subsequent opinion of the Principal Secretary dated 20.3.2012 has the approval of the Chief Minister and the proceeding so initiated against the petitioner was converted in a proceeding under rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules vide reso