ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The State of Jharkhand has questioned legality of the order dated 2nd March 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.4885 of 2004 remanding the matter before the competent authority for taking a fresh decision.

2. The writ Court held that (i) proviso (c) to rule 43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules 2000 is mandatory (ii) issue of parity in punishment by withholding pension was not examined and (iii) prejudice was caused by not supplying enquiry report to the writ petitioner who is respondent no.1 before us.

3. On behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr. Ashok Kumar, the learned AAG-IV, submits that the departmental proceeding against the respondent no.1 was conducted in terms of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930 and, therefore, the writ Court exceeded jurisdiction in interfering with the order contained in notification dated 16th April 2007 by which 50% pension granted to the respondent no.1 was withheld.

4. The learned AAG-IV has relied on the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors.” (1995) 6 SCC 749 to fortify the above submission.

5. The respondent no.1 who was appointed on the post of Assistant Engi