IMPORTANT POINT
A disciplinary authority must provide clear reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings; failure to do so can render the disciplinary action invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Partha Sarthy, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief(s) :-

“1. That the present writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ or writs, in the nature of the writ of (i) Certiorari quashing the order contained in Memo No. 408 dated 13.02.2015 (Annexure-8) issued by the Director, Secondary Education, respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 4 on culminations of a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner has awarded the punishment of deduction of 5% of the amount on permanent basis from the pension payable to the petitioner and the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner through Annexure-1 (ii) Mandamus directing/ commanding and restraining the respondents from making such deduction from the amount of pension payable to the petitioner and stay of the operation of the impugned order contained in Annexure-8 pending disposal of the writ petition.”

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner who superannuated from service on 30.9.2007 while working as Headmaster, CND High School, Baunsi, Banka was proceeded against departmentally under section 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. He was served with charge-sheet on 7.10.2009 and asked to file his reply to which he gave point wise reply on 25.1.2010. The inquiry was completed and the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report (Annexure-4) on 15.2.2012.

4. The superannuation benefits of the petitioner not having been settled inspite of his having retired on 30.9.2007, the petitioner moved this Court in CWJC no.18441 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2013 with a direction to the respondents to conclude the 43B proceeding within a reasonable time preferably within a period of six months. It was further observed that if after the end of the inquiry, the petitioner is exonerated, the respondents will have an obligation to expedite the payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner.

5. The respondents issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.9.2014 to which the petitioner replied on 23.9.2014. Thereafter the respondents came out with the order of punishment as contained in order dated 13.2.2015 under the signature of the Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna imposing the punishment of deduction of 5 per cent amount of pension of the petitioner on permanent basis. It is against this order of punishment that the instant application has been preferred.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, stating therein that on receipt of the report of the District Education Officer, Banka vide letter dated 30.7.2008, the matter was examined in the department and vide order dated 7.10.2009 it was decided that a departmental proceeding be started under Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 7.10.2009. On receipt of the report dated 15.2.2012 of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, the petitioner was served with a second show cause notice on 29.10.2012 and reminders were also sent on 27.9.2013, 13.3.2014 as also on 15.9.2014. On receipt of the petitioner’s reply on 23.9.2014, the reply was considered, not found satisfactory and in the opinion of the respondents, the charge was found proved. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Government and the order of punishment of permanent deduction of 5 per cent pension was passed against the petitioner.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it may be mentioned here that vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in the instant case, this Court directed the respondents to produce the original records with respect to the departmental proceeding of the petitioner. No records were produced. A further counter affi