The disciplinary authority must show a difference of opinion with the enquiry officer's finding before inflicting punishment and provide an opportunity for representation.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.4823 of 2020

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 159 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A.No.4823 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 159 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No.777 of 2019

6. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.246 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 25.06.2015 as contained in Memo No.3125, by which, it has been decided to withhold 25 per cent of pension of the writ petitioner, has been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition.

7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :

The fact of the case is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 26.01.1979 as Assistant Engineer and was posted at Master Planning Division, Jamui (Bihar). He was promoted as Executive Engineer in-charge while posted in Rural Development Special Circle. Thereafter, he was posted as Technical Adviser at Jamtara and was transferred to the Minor Irrigation Division, Godda sometime in the month of August, 2008. On attaining the age of 60 years, the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2011 while working as Executive Engineer in-charge, Minor Irrigation Division, Godda. A proceeding has been initiated against the writ petitioner after his retirement, vide memo no.3363 dated 07.12.2011 alleging therein that some irregularity has been committed by him, while, he was posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Godda. The enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 04.05.2012. The enquiry officer has found the charges not proved against the writ petitioner, therefore, a suggestion has been made that since the amount has allegedly been over-spent amounting to Rs.9,93,740/-, has already been deposited from the end of the writ petitioner, as such, no further action needs to be taken. The Additional Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, on receipt of such enquiry report, sought for an explanation from the writ petitioner as to why an appropriate action be not taken against him for the alleged misconduct. The writ petitioner has filed a detailed reply. After considering the aforesaid reply, the order of punishment was passed, withholding 25 per cent of pension, against which, the writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking the ground that the enquiry officer since has not found the charges proved against the writ petitioner and further, on the basis of the amount having been deposited by the Junior Engineer through the Assistant Engineer, on the oral direction of the concerned Deputy Development Commissioner, therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, but instead of doing so, a second show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the order of punishment withholding 25 per cent of pension was passed.

The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid submission and by taking into consideration the position of law, has interfered by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand.

8. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge before interfering with the impugned ord