JUDGMENT :

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, learned AC to GA 13. LA. No. 5118 of 2018

2. The above mentioned Interlocutory Application has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 281 days in filing the present appeal.

3. Considering the grounds taken in the limitation petition suggesting sufficient reason for not filing the appeal in time by the appellant, the delay of 281 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

4. Accordingly, LA. No.5118 of 2018 stands disposed of.

IA. No. 5119 of 2018

5. The above mentioned Interlocutory application has been filed for stay of the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2017 passed in CWJC No. 8876 of 2011.

L.P.A.No.936of2018

6. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 30.8.2017 passed in CWJC No. 8876 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the Notification bearing No. 1300 dated 3.2.2011, whereby the respondent was imposed with punishment of permanent reduction of his pension to the extent of 50% and apart from that, he was not allowed to get anything except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

7. The factual matrix of the case is that the delinquent officer-respondent was an Executive Engineer posted on deputation in the Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') from 1.2.2005 to 31.6.2005 and from 12.12.2005 to 21.12.2006. The then District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide letter no. 51 dated 29.3.2003,intimated to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar with regard to certain irregularities being committed in the Authority in 366 rural development schemes and 377 urban development schemes. The then Principal Secretary, Urban Development, vide letter no. 606 dated 6.7.2006 ordered for setting up an enquiry. Consequently, out of 743 development schemes, 48 schemes were randomly selected for enquiry and during enquiry, it was found that gross irregularity has been committed in such schemes. Moreover, the work was to be conducted by the approval of the Vice Chairman of the Authority but it was done without such approval and as a result, huge loss was caused to the public exchequer. The schemes also related to the period 2000-2006, during which period the respondent was posted in the Authority. Consequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated in 2008 against the respondent after framing of altogether nine charges.

8. The enquiry was constituted under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The enquiry officer submitted the report (Annexure 4 to the writ application) on 18.6.2007 holding that none of the nine charges leveled against the respondent are proved and exonerated him of all the charges. However, the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, recorded his own finding of guilt dated 29.1.2010, as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application and thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why he should not be punished and thereafter, considering the explanation of the respondent dated 16.2.2010, as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application, the punishment order dated 3.2.2011 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application, reducing the pension of the respondent to the extent of 50% permanently and not allowing him to be entitled to anything except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, was passed.

9. The said order was challenged in the writ application. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of punishment on the ground that no notice on disagreement of the findings of the enquiry officer, was given to the respondent before holding him guilty by the disciplinary authority. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is admitted position that the enquiry officer did not find the charges proved and exonerated the resp