Jyoti Saran, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Harish Kumar, G.P.-8 for the State, Mr. A.P. Sahai for the Corporation and Mr. S.K. Jha for the Accountant General. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been heard with a view to final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 1518 dated 2.8.2016 passed by the Director, Planning and Development Department whereby in exercise of powers vested under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Pension Rules"), an order has been passed for withholding of 10 per cent of the pension of the petitioner on permanent basis which order of the Director having the concurrence of the Minister In-Charge, is impugned at Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner, an employee of the Statistical Department of the Government of Bihar was posted as a Block Statistical Officer at Bikramganj Block in the District of Rohtas and under the orders of the District Magistrate, Rohtas, he was assigned the duties of a Purchase Centre, In-Charge for the purpose of procurement of wheat under the scheme of the Government of India as executed by the authorities State of Bihar in connection with the authorities of the Bihar State food and Civil Supplies Corporation who were made the nodal agencies. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned as the Purchase In-Charge, his duty stands described at Item No. 5 of the order of the District Magistrate placed on record at Annexure-1.

4. Within a few months of his posting that the petitioner received an explanation call from the Joint Director, Planning and Development Department in its Directorate of Economics and Statistics dated 27.8.2012 charging him. with certain irregularities found at the running of the Purchase Centre which was communicated by the Block Supply Officer through his letter dated 8.6.2012 to the District Magistrate, Rohtas and who in turn forwarded the complaint to the Department for necessary action leading to the show cause in question which is placed on record vide Annexure-2 series. The petitioner denied all allegations by his exhaustive explanation present at Annexure-4 which was filed on 18.10.2012 and whereafter the matter was not pursued. It is almost one and half year therefrom and just a day prior to the retirement of the petitioner on 31.1.2014 that he received an office order bearing Memo No. 129 dated 30.1.2014 informing him about the initiation of a proceeding under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Disciplinary Rules"). A charge memo which is identical to the memo accompanying the show cause present at Annexure-2, was served on the petitioner and in support of the allegations, the Department chose to simply rely upon on the letter dated 8.6.2012 of the Block Supply Officer which is mentioned in the charge memo in Form-Ka.

5. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner as manifest from the charge memo. Whereas charge memo No. 1 related to his inefficient functioning at the Purchase Centre and his failure to maintain an orderly situation at the centre; the charge No. 2, alleges disobedience to the directions in not handing over charge of the Purchase Centre to the Centre In-Charge in violation of the directions of the District Magistrate. The petitioner asked for the documents supporting the allegations which is reflecting from the letter of the Centre In-Charge present at running page 35 as well as the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer addressed to the Block Development Officer dated 26.3.2014 at Annexure-6 series. The documents apparently were not supplied rather the petitioner got a caution from the Additional Collector who was appointed the conducting officer to cooperate, failing which it would be held that he had nothing to say as reflecting from