JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification No. 4/2016-3836 dated 9.9.2022 (Annexure-5), whereby, the petitioner has been inflicted with penalty of deduction of 10% pension for two years.

2. The petitioner retired from the post of Engineer-in-Chief, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi on 28.2.2022. There is an allegation that while he was posted as Superintending Engineer, Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Urban Circle, Ranchi, he technically sanctioned a construction of brick masonry Channel with RCC Culvert in 1st phase pipe in filtration plant campus at Rukka under DW & S, S/R Head Works Division, Ranchi for a sum of Rs. 26,22,247.00 on 10.12.2012. The petitioner after completion of his service superannuated. The entire service period of the petitioner was unblemished as he was promoted from the post of Assistant Engineer and ultimately to the post of Engineer-in-Chief. After 15 days from the date of his superannuation, the petitioner was served with a show cause dated 15.3.2022 alleging therein that he technically sanctioned the aforesaid work, but within one year of the said work, the brick guard wall collapsed due to defect in the design, thus, the services of the petitioner was held unsatisfactory. It was further mentioned in the notice that in view of the aforesaid unsatisfactory service, the Government is intending to invoke Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

3. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the allegation which was levelled is in respect of an incident of the year 2012 for which, no notice under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules could have been issued after a lapse of ten years. For an incident, which is older than four years, cannot be a ground to pass an Order under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

4. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 56. In support of his contention, he submits that Rule 43-b of Jharkhand Pension Rules must be read with Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules.

5. Counsel for the State submits that admittedly the petitioner gave technical sanction to construct the guard wall. As there was fault in the design, the wall collapsed in September, 2015 i.e. within two years. He further submits that since the petitioner gave technical sanction, he must be held responsible for the said collapse. He also submits that the petitioner superannuated on 28.2.2022 and notice was served on 15.3.2022 i.e. within three years of sanction of the pension and proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to defend his case by filing a reply to show cause notice which was duly considered and thereafter 10% of the pension was ordered to be deducted for two years. Thus, there is no ambiguity in the entire process.

6. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I find that the question which falls for consideration is whether Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules should be read with Rule 43-b or in isolation and whether cognizance can be taken of an event which occurred four years prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notice.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner superannuated on 28.2.2022 from the post of Engineer-in-Chief. He gave technical sanction for construction of a channel Wall. The wall collapsed within two years from the said construction. Admittedly, the approval was granted on 10.12.2012. It is admitted case that thereafter no action was taken against the petitioner. Only after superannuation vide Memo No. 1351 dated 15.3.2022, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, asking him to give a proper reply as to why not an appropriate action would be taken against him under the said Rules as his service was not thoroughly satisfactory. The reason that the service of the petitioner was not found satisfa