ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Shadab bin Haque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Jharkhand, Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar and Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 [Accountant General].

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner is happened to be the widow of late Dr. Krishna Bandhu Jha, who died on 22.05.2015 and that is why she has come before this Court.

4. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 02.01.2004 passed by the Government of Jharkhand whereby 10 % of Gratuity and Pension has been directed to be withheld. The prayer for releasing of the said 100 % pension and gratuity were also made. Prayer for penal interest is also made.

5. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 02.12.1966 on the post of Medical Officer in the department of Health in the erstwhile State of Bihar. Subsequently, in view of bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner was allocated the State of Jharkhand cadre and superannuated on 31.01.2001 from the post of Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Giridih. A show cause was issued in the year 1998 for the alleged purchase of the medicine which was replied by the husband of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also moved in W.P.(S) No.6607/2002 which was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner. He further submits that the husband of the petitioner has not received any show cause, except a show cause dated 19.05.1998 which was duly replied nor any departmental or criminal case is pending against the husband of the petitioner. He submits that no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the husband of the petitioner. By way of referring the impugned order dated 02.01.2004, he submits that only on the basis of one letter of the State of Bihar the said order has been passed by the State of Jharkhand whereby 10 % pension and gratuity has been directed to be withheld. He submits that there is no finding of any loss in terms of Rule 43(b) which is a condition precedent for passing such order. He further submits that there was no departmental proceeding initiated against the husband of the petitioner before his superannuation. He submits that in that view of the matter, Rule 43(2)(b) has wrongly been applied that too, on a letter of 2001 by the State of Bihar. He submits that the State of Jharkhand was required to take independent decision irrespective of the document of the Government of Bihar.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand has tried to justify the order and submits that there is no material before the State of Jharkhand and the State of Jharkhand was compelled to take decision in light of 2001 order of the State of Bihar.

8. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the respondent State of Bihar submits that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25.11.2020 a supplementary counter affidavit dated 04.02.2021 has been filed on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar. By way of referring paragraph no.5 of the said supplementary counter affidavit, he submits that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Animal Husbandry Department Branch, Patna informed vide letter dated 22.01.2021 wherein it has been stated that no MSD scam against Dr. Krishna Bandhu Jha, the then District Tuberculosis Officer, Hazaribagh is pending.

9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the mater