JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the order/judgment dated 09.09.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 2005 of 2018 by which the writ petition was dismissed declining to interfere with notification dated 26.12.2017 as contained in Memo No. 4582 whereby decision has been taken that 10% pension of the petitioner will be deducted from the pension for the next five years.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under:

The petitioner was appointed on 01.03.1979 on the post of Assistant Superintendent, Sales Tax Department. The petitioner-appellant vide notification no. 80 dated 15.01.1988 was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes w.e.f. 01.02.1988. While working as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated by serving memorandum of charge on 11.05.1999 on the allegation that the petitioner had misused his official power and wrongly issued 142 number of Form ‘F’ in favour of M/s. Eastern Spinning Mill & Industries, Jamshedpur to aid the dealer in evasion of tax and thereby caused loss of revenue. Pursuant thereto, the enquiry officer was appointed who after enquiry found gross negligence and violation of departmental orders by the petitioner.

In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2007 while working as Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. After superannuation of the petitioner, the proceeding was converted into proceeding under Section 43(b) of the Pension Rules and accordingly, show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and thereafter vide order dated 12.01.2010 punishment was imposed upon the petitioner by which 50% pension on month to month basis from the pension of the petitioner was directed to be deducted till the loss incurred to the department to the extent of Rs. 14,63,825.46/- is being recovered.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3679 of 2010 which was allowed vide order 16.09.2016 by which the impugned order of punishment dated 12.01.2010 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the respondents-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the quantum of punishment within stipulated period of time.

In compliance thereof, the respondents-authorities vide order dated 17.10.2016, constituted a Two-Member committee to re-examine the issue of loss of revenue and to decide the quantum of punishment. But the said two-member committee did not provide clear finding as such the respondents vide order dated 01.11.2017 the Additional Commissioner & Joint Commissioner, Head Quarters was authorized to submit report with detailed discussion on the issue of loss of revenue. The two-member committee submitted its report finding gross negligence and breach of statutory rules against the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents vide notification dated 26.12.2017 passed final order whereby punishment of 10% pension from the pension of the petitioner was passed for the term of five years, subject to judicial proceeding pending against the petitioner.

Being aggrieved with punishment order dated 26.12.2017, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2005 of 2018, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.09.2020 declining to grant any relief to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order passed by learned Single Judge on the ground that impugned order 26.12.2017 has been passed by invoking the provision as contained under Section 139(C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules and as such the order of punishment passed under Section 139(c) of the Pension Rules cannot be said to be justified reason being that once the proceeding has been converted under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules there was no authority to the State Government t