Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2012, passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, whereby and whereunder 5% pension of the petitioner had been directed to be deducted by way of punishment under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the appellate order dated 13.11.2013, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Mohrim in Revenue Department (Settlement Office) at Purnia and had retired on 31.01.2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was posted at Karim Nagar Anchal, a charge-sheet dated 18.08.2004 was issued to the petitioner levelling 04 charges and a department proceeding was initiated against him. The department inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report, however, it is submitted that there is no finding regarding the petitioner having indulged in any sort of gross misconduct or having caused any pecuniary loss to the Government. In fact, the entire matter was also evaluated by the Deputy Collector (Establishment), whose note can be found at page no. 20 of the writ petition, wherein he has also come to a conclusion that the present case is not a case of gross misconduct, hence, the department proceeding can be put to an end.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that despite the aforesaid findings of the Deputy Collector (Establishment) dated 02.12.2009, the District Magistrate, Purnia, by a non-speaking and a cryptic order, has directed for reduction of pension of the petitioner by 5% by an order dated 24.04.2012, contained in Memo dated 26.04.2012. The said order dated 24.04.2012 was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal bearing Appeal no. 45 of 2012, which has also been rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the Deputy Collector (Establishment), in his note dated 02.12.2009 as also the Inquiry Officer have come to the conclusion that the present case is not a case of gross misconduct and no pecuniary loss has been caused, the petitioner could not have been punished Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment dated 21.06.2018, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 18055 of 2010 (Kumar Ajit Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others), relevant paragraphs whereof, are being reproduced hereinbelow: –

“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of punishment dated 17.09.2009 would show that firstly, the same has not furnished any reason for inflicting punishment on the petitioner herein and has merely narrated the series of events which have taken place in the present case and secondly, there is no finding of any grave misconduct as against the petitioner or of having caused pecuniary loss to the Government on account of the said misconduct so as to warrant infliction of punishment in terms of Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Having heard the parties and upon going through the materials on record, I am of the view that the impugned order of punishment dated 17.09.2009 suffers from total non-application of mind and does not furnish any reason so as to warrant infliction of punishment on the petitioner herein. Moreover, the impugned order dated 17.09.2009 also does not comply with the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 to the effect that for inflicting punishment under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, it is necessary to come to a conclusion of grave misconduct on the part of the delinquent or pecuniary loss having been caused to the Government on account of the misdeeds of the