1. The appellant has brought this appeal aggrieved by an order passed by the disciplinary authority directing deduction of 10% from his pension on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the audit report. This order has been sustained by the learned First Court.

2. The appellant was working as a Senior Auditor, Grade-II under Deputy Controller In-charge, South Chhotanagpur Division, District Ranchi. He has retired from his service on 31st January, 2013. The allegation of irregularities relates to a time when he audited the account of Child Development Project Office, Bahragora for the aforesaid two financial years and from April to November, 2008. Allegation is that certificate was given that there was no irregularity in the audit. That certificate was given after about one year of conclusion of the audit. Subsequently, the same account had been audited by the Accountant General and several illegalities were found in such account. He was asked to explain such anomalies by a letter dated 7th September, 2011. Appellant claims that by a letter of 17th September, 2011, he had given his explanation.

3. The appellant was issued a show-cause notice on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during the aforesaid period of audit. It appears that there were two enquiry reports at the departmental level submitted in the matter, the last one having been issued on 3rd November, 2012. The memorandum of charges, however, was issued on 26th March, 2014 and thereafter upon completion of enquiry, the aforesaid penalty was imposed.

4. The appellant sought quashing of the penalty imposed by the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28th January, 2015 and also quashing of the notices comprising of the letters dated 3rd September, 2010, 7th September, 2011 and 26th March, 2014. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition holding, inter-alia:-

“Briefly stated, the petitioner who superannuated from service on 31.01.2013 was issued a show-cause notice on the allegation of concealing irregularities committed during 2006-07 to 2007-08 in his audit report. An enquiry report was submitted in the matter and after issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner the penalty order dated 28.01.2015 has been passed. Before that, another enquiry dated 03.09.2010 was submitted in which the enquiry officer recommended further enquiry by Finance (Audit) Department. Generally challenge to the charge-memo or the enquiry report is not entertained by the writ Court unless the charge-memo is found patently illegal or without jurisdiction. The enquiry report by its own nature cannot be interfered by the writ Court, for it would involve an exercise in adjudication of the disputed facts. Accordingly, challenge to letter dated 07.09.2011 (Annexure-2) and letter dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure-4) must fail. On challenge to legality of penalty order dated 28.01.2015, it needs to be recorded that disciplinary authority has recorded that inspite of several notices issued, the petitioner neither appeared before the enquiry officer nor did he submit his written defence. The enquiry officer has found charges framed against the petitioner proved. The second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21.10.2014 which has also remain unanswered by the petitioner. Not only that, a notice in the newspaper was also published directing the petitioner to submit his reply, still he did not respond to the notice. Obviously, the petitioner cannot contend that the departmental proceeding was conducted in breach of the rules of natural justice. It is not a case pleaded by the petitioner that the departmental enquiry has been conducted contrary to the extant Rules. The penalty order is founded on the enquiry report.”

5. Ms. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has referred to Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (the 1950 Rules) as applicable to this State. It is the appellant