JUDGMENT

S. N. Pathak, J. - In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally.

PRAYER

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of order issued vide Memo No. 1543, dated 19.02.2014, under the signature of the Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand by which decision has been taken by the respondents for deduction of 5% of pension of petitioner for the next fifteen years.

Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of memo no. 47, dated 07.01.2019, issued under the signature of Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand, by which appeal preferred by petitioner against the order issued vide memo no. 1543, dated 19.02.2014 has been dismissed.

Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay full pension after quashment of impugned orders.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual exposition as has been narrated in the writ petition is that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer at Bhagalpur in the erstwhile State of Bihar on 26.01.1979 and on attaining age of retirement, he superannuated from the service on 29.02.2008 from the post of Executive Engineer. After his retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 43(B) of the Pension Rules, vide Resolution No. 445, dated 05.02.2009, alleging therein that there was violation of departmental rules in Tender invitation, tender disposal, work allocation and back dating by the petitioner with regard to works of Tender Invitation Information No. 1/05 - 06. After enquiry, the report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 10.07.2011 wherein none of the charges against the petitioner was found proved and noting was given to exonerate the petitioner from the charges. However, thereafter petitioner was served with a letter no. 5748, dated 30.09.2013, issued by Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Government of Jharkhand wherein he has been informed that allegations levelled against him has been found true and Government is in consideration for imposing punishment of deduction of 5% of Pension under Rule 139 of Pension Rules and 15 days' time was granted to the petitioner to file show-cause. Petitioner denied the allegations and submitted his reply on 28.10.2013. Without any second show-cause, petitioner was served memo no. 5748 dated 30.09.2013 wherein it was disclosed that petitioner shall be imposed punishment of deduction of 5% of pension under Rule 139 of the Pension Rules. After departmental proceeding, an order vide memo no. 1543, dated 19.02.2014 was issued wherein petitioner was informed that he has been inflicted with punishment of deduction of 5% from his pension under Rule 139 of Pension Rules. Accordingly, the Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand was also intimated vide letter no. 2198, dated 11.03.2014 recommending deduction of 5% of Pension of the petitioner for the fifteen years from the date of his superannuation. Petitioner preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed vide memo no. 47, dated 07.01.2016.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the Enquiry Report it clearly reveals that though petitioner was exonerated from the charges but the same has been given go bye and he has been given harsh punishment at his old age. The impugned orders of punishment and appellate orders are cryptic and liable to be quashed. The deviation from the enquiry report mandates specific show cause to that effect but the same was never served upon the petitioner in total violation of principles of natural justice. Even prior to awarding