IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of natural justice require that a disciplinary authority must provide reasons for differing from an inquiry officer's findings and allow the employee an opportunity to respond before imposing penalties.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. PATHAK, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure-9), issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 3), whereby under the garb of provisions enshrined under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 15% pension of the petitioner has been withheld. Further prayer has been made for quashing the Memo No. 425(18) dated 19.12.2023 (Annexure-11) by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been turned down, affirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of entire recovered amount along with interest @ 18% per annum.

3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer and joined the services on 18.08.1983 and subsequently, retired from the post of Deputy Director, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, on 30.11.2019. Vide Memo No. 715(18) dated 16.10.2019, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuance of Prapatra-Ka by the Under Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. Though the Prapatra-Ka was not approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand, notices were issued for conducting the departmental enquiry and the petitioner appeared in the departmental enquiry. After following the procedures, the inquiry officer submitted the enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from charges. The disciplinary authority having not been satisfied by the findings of the inquiry officer, again issued show cause notice on 25.07.2022 regarding fresh enquiry on Charge No. 2. Thereafter a fresh enquiry with respect to charge no. 2 was conducted. However, again the petitioner was not found guilty of the said charge and he was given a clean chit. It is the specific case of the petitioner that without differing with the findings of the inquiry officer and without assigning cogent reason, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of stoppage of 15% pension for life. The petitioner preferred appeal thereagainst before His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand. When the appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3109 of 2023. However, the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.10.2023 with a direction to take decision on the departmental appeal. Thereafter, the departmental appeal of the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide Memo No. 425(18) dated 19.12.2023. Having no efficacious and alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously urges that the impugned orders are not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was exonerated by the inquiry officer in a full-fledged departmental proceeding. However, the disciplinary authority having not been satisfied by the findings of the inquiry officer issued a second show cause notice and started a fresh enquiry with respect to charge no. 2. The said charge was also not found to be true and the inquiry officer has given a clean chit to the petitioner. At this stage, he fairly submits that in a case where the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent employee, still the disciplinary authority has power and jurisdiction to differ with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and record a tentative reasoning of such difference by supplying the copy thereof to the delinquent employee and thereafter the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and punish the delinquent employee. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case, no settled norms have been adhered to by the disciplinary authority. What has been done is that the disciplinary authority is