By The Court - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for an appropriate writ/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the memo no. 1272 dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure-7), whereby 50% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted for next five years.

2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that, the petitioner was appointed as Circle Inspector and while he was posted in Ranchi, he recommended for mutation of land of Khata No. 208/210/205 and Khata No. 312, 313, 314, 315 and 316 of village Kadru and out of the said khata the petitioner was charge-sheeted for recommending for mutation of the land of Khata No. 314 of village Kadru. Thereafter, the then Additional Collector Sri Sunil Kumar Singh was made enquiry officer to enquire into the matter and the enquiry report was submitted. Though the enquiry report was submitted on 19.05.2008, the Government after two years of submission of the enquiry report asked the petitioner to file his show cause. After receipt of the show cause, the petitioner filed his reply on 14.05.2010. The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka on 30.04.2010. Vide memo no. 1272 dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure-7), 50% pension of the petitioner has been directed to be deducted for next five years. The said order was never made available to the petitioner and only when the petitioner had approached this Court for payment of retiral benefit amount in W.P. (S) No. 5239 of 2010, which is still pending, the respondent made submission before the Hon'ble High Court in the said writ application regarding the said punishment order. The petitioner came to know about the same and thereafter, petitioner applied before the respondent no.2 for grant of said punishment order dated 13.04.2012.

Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

3. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C. V. for the respondents-State.

4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that since the petitioner has retired from the service on 30.04.2010 and no proceeding has been initiated or the said proceeding has been converted as per the Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule and as such the entire process as adopted by the respondents is novel under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without considering the objection raised by the petitioner and without providing the documents as demanded by the petitioner in his show cause reply dated 14.05.2010, the respondent authority vide letter no. 2086 dated 28.07.2010 asked the petitioner to submit his final show cause reply and in pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 31.8.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment order of deduction of 50 per cent pension of the petitioner for a period of five years against the petitioner has been passed without providing proper opportunity to the petitioner and without giving proper hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the person who has framed charge against the petitioner has been made enquiry officer in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding which has been initiated against the petitioner is just before the retirement of the petitioner and even after retirement the proceeding was continuing against the petitioner without converting the same under Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rule and therefore, the entire proceeding is illegal in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of withholding 50% of pension is without jurisdiction in view of the fact that although the dep