JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.06.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5331 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the order dated 01.08.2014 contained in Memo No.2656 by which punishment of censure has been imposed against the writ petitioner has been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant time he was posted as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jamshedpur Circle, Jamshedpur. The petitioner was put under suspension and was posted at North Pargana Division, Dumka.

The petitioner was served with the chargesheet in Form-A vide letter dated 26.07.2013. The petitioner was directed to show cause in the light of the charge as leveled against the petitioner in Form-A within a period of one week.

It has been alleged against the petitioner that in spite of allotment, the arrears of one Brij Nandan Singh, retired Cooperative Extension Officer, Jamshedpur, was not paid. The said arrear was for the period prior to 15.11.2000 amounting to Rs.60,000/-.

The petitioner submitted his show cause vide letter dated 08.08.2013 stating therein that for payment of the arrears of Sri Brij Nandan Singh for the period prior to 15.11.2000, allotment was received vide Allotment Order dated 19.02.2013 for a sum of Rs.74,332/- vide e-mail. He has further stated in the show cause that the petitioner received the information regarding allotment only on 05.04.2013 in the meeting with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jharkhand and as soon as he received this information, he immediately surrendered the said amount to the Registrar, Cooperative Society, Jharkhand as it was not possible to withdraw the amount after 31st March, 2013 and a report regarding surrender of the amount was submitted vide letter dated 25.06.2013.

Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 01.08.2014 the petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of censure against which writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5331 of 2015 has been filed on the ground that the order of censure has been passed without taking into consideration the response put forth by the writ petitioner, since, no reason has been assigned in the impugned order imposing punishment of censure, i.e., order dated 01.08.2014.

Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the submission advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner and after going across the order passed by the authority concerned imposing punishment of censure, has found substance in the argument/ground agitated on behalf of the writ petitioner and has interfered with the order of punishment dated 01.08.2014 by quashing and setting it aside which is the subject matter of the instant appeal having been preferred by the State of Jharkhand.

3. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the State, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact in right perspective since the very requirement for imposing the minor punishment like censure has been followed by issuing show cause and in terms thereof, representation has also been submitted and the same after having been taken into consideration, as would appear from the impugned order dated 01.08.2014 wherein it has been reflected by the authority concerned that the reply has not been found to be satisfactory and, therefore, the said order of punishment of censure cannot be said to suffer from an error but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid fact and has quashed and set aside the order of punishment, therefore, the impugned order requires interference.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant State, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge.

5. The issue which has been