IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules requires a clear finding of either pecuniary loss or grave misconduct for pension withholding to be valid.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.9515 of 2023:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 153 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. The cause has been assigned to condone the delay as available at paragraphs-3 to 8 of the said interlocutory application.

3. This Court, on consideration of the explanation as is available at paragraphs-3 to 8, is of the view that the delay in filing the instant appeal is to be condoned so as to decide the issue on merit.

4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 153 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

L.P.A. No. 46 of 2023:

Prayer:

5. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 670 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 28.12.2015 as contained in Memo No. 6347 by which the 10% from the pension has been ordered to be forfeited in exercise of power conferred under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the respondents to refund the amount so deducted from the pension of the petitioner and restore his pension to the original state.

Facts:

6. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:

The writ petitioner joined as Assistant Engineer in the Bihar State Constructions, Patna on 08.02.1979 and while working on the post of Chief Engineer (Mechanical) in Ranchi, as survey report was submitted and the material were evaluated at Rs.10,54,700/- which was approved by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the said material was evaluated by the predecessor-in-office of the writ petitioner at Rs.7,92,000/- and thereafter, the notice was invited to sell the said material.

The writ petitioner superannuated from service on 30.11.2012 from the post of Chief Engineer Irrigation, Ranchi.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner was served with the charge sheet vide memo no.1906 dated 03.03.2014. The writ petitioner submitted his reply on 22.03.2014. Thereafter, the enquiry officer-cum-Engineer-in-Chief-II, Water Resources Department of Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi submitted enquiry report vide letter dated 21.11.2014 holding therein that no loss has been caused to the Department.

Pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 24.08.2015, the writ petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the second show cause in respect of the punishment of withholding of 10% from his pension.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department of the Government of Jharkhand, while disagreeing with the enquiry report did not issue any show cause notice pointing out the point of difference and did not offer any opportunity to the writ petitioner to submit his explanation. The writ petitioner was also not provided any opportunity before the Flying Squad.

Thereafter, the writ petitioner on 03.09.2015 submitted his explanation in regard to the report submitted by the Flying Squad and the 2nd evaluation report. But, the reply having not found satisfactory, punishment order as contained in memo no. 6347 dated 28.12.2015 was passed withholding 10% from the pension of the writ petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 670 of 2016 wherein the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2015 against which the present letters patent appeal has been preferred.

7. It is evident from the factual aspect that after superannuation of the writ petitioner, proceeding was initiated under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules vide circular/charge sheet dated 03.03.2014 levelling therein the allegation that due to his conduct the department has sustained loss of Rs.25.86 lakhs but the writ petitioner rebutted the said allegation.

The writ petitioner has tak