ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo No.3894 dated 23.09.2014 passed by the Principal Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby 10% of the pension amount has been ordered to be deducted from the pension of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay full pension as well as the arrears of the pension to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Settlement Officer in the year 1994 and he retired from service on 31.07.2011 from the Dumka Settlement Office. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide resolution as contained in memo no.4530 dated 21.10.2003 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and Charge Officer, Dumka was appointed as Conducting Officer. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner by the respondent authorities alleging that he had changed the order of his predecessor passed in Tasdik Camp, Pathargama, concerning village Jaranikola, Thana no.88, Jamabandi no.13, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It was also alleged that the petitioner had passed an order to include some raiyats other than Jamabandi raiyats in column-4 of the Khatiyan, concerning Moiuja Lakhanpahari, Jamabandi no.32 by making a genealogy through pencil beside previously made genealogy. The petitioner filed reply to the charges levelled against him and thereafter the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 07.12.2011 intimated the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand that the order passed by the petitioner was set aside by the then Deputy Commissioner-cum-Settlement Officer, Dumka vide order dated 26.09.2002 and as such it prima facie appeared that there was no loss to the State exchequer by the alleged conduct of the petitioner. It would be evident from the letter dated 07.12.2011 that after receiving reply from the petitioner, he was discharged from the charges levelled against him. However, after retirement of the petitioner, he was served with a second show cause notice vide memo no. 631 dated 26.02.2013 which was duly replied by him. Thereafter, vide impugned order as contained in memo no.3894 dated 23.09.2014, 10% of the pension amount of the petitioner has been ordered to be deducted from his pension. It is further submitted that since the petitioner was already discharged from the charges levelled against him during his service tenure itself, there was no reason to pass the impugned order after his retirement.

3. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was involved in corrupt practices causing loss to the concerned raiyats and as such a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The petitioner was not discharged from the charges and after his retirement the departmental proceeding initiated under Rule 55 of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Pension Rules, 1950. It is also submitted that the impugned order was passed after following due procedure of law and as such no interference is warranted against the same under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is also proportionate to the charge levelled against him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The primary argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was already discharged from the charges during his service tenure, there was no question of issuing second show cause notice to him particularly after his retirement.

5. Learned counsel for the pet