JUDGMENT :

With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The instant appeal is listed under the heading for ‘Admission' and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is being disposed of at this stage itself.

3. This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order/judgment dated 16.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1152 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the writ Court has declined to interfere with the order of punishment, passed against the writ petitioner, as contained in Memo No. 6350 dated 28.12.2015, issued by the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the writ petitioner was awarded punishment of curtailment of 5 % pension for a period of three years.

4. The brief facts of the case, which are required to be enumerated herein for proper adjudication of the lis, are as under :

The writ petitioner, who was an Assistant Engineer and while posted in Minor Irrigation Division, Bokaro, was entrusted with construction work of Lachhua Bandh Talab, Jaridih and Baru Koop (Well), Jaridih. But some irregularities were found in execution of the aforesaid work, therefore, preliminary enquiry was directed to be conducted, basing upon which, regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner with the allegation that excess payment to the tune of Rs. 2,18,930.48 paise was made for construction work of Lachhua Bandh Talab, Jaridih and further excess payment to the tune of Rs. 58,124/-was made, so far Baru Koop (Well), Jaridih is concerned as depth of the well was short by 9.34 feet. After enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted inquiry report dated 15.01.2014 finding the charges leveled against the writ petitioner not proved.

In the meantime, the writ petitioner was separated from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2013. After his superannuation, the proceeding has deemed to be converted under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

The disciplinary authority did not agree with the inquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, hence issued second show cause notice dated 09.07.2015, annexing therewith copy of inquiry report, to the writ petitioner proposing the punishment of curtailment of 10% pension. In response thereof, the writ petitioner submitted detailed reply to the second show cause. Considering the said reply, impugned order dated 28.12.2015 was passed whereby pension of the writ petitioner was curtailed by 5 % for a period of three years.

Aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly on the ground that reply to the second show cause notice was not properly considered by the respondents-authorities but the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the procedure of departmental proceeding was properly followed, which order is the subject matter of present intra-court appeal.

5. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that basic procedure for imposing punishment of curtailment of 5 % pension from the pensionary benefit of the writ petitioner was not followed to the extent that when the enquiry officer had submitted enquiry report finding charges not proved against the writ petitioner and in that circumstance, if the disciplinary authority differs with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer reason, was to be recorded and copy of such reason of difference was to be furnished to the delinquent-officer but instead of doing so, a second show cause was issued with proposed punishment of curtailment of 10 % pension, which is not permissible in a case where charges were found not proved by the enquiry officer.

Further ground has been agitated that principle of parity in imposing punishment