Disciplinary authority must provide specific reasons in second show cause notice when disagreeing with enquiry officer's exoneration; absence violates natural justice. Entire gratuity withholdable pending departmental proceedings under pension rules.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to quash the impugned Letter bearing No.1232 dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby second Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner, asking him to file an appropriate reply so that the Departmental Proceeding can be concluded.

2.1. The petitioner has further prayed to conclude the Departmental Proceeding and pay the Gratuity amount to the petitioner which has not been disbursed even after his superannuation.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that while in service, the petitioner was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet and thereafter a Departmental Enquiry was initiated. She submits that in the Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated as the Enquiry Officer did not find any of the charges to be proved against the petitioner. She contends that the enquiry report was submitted on 21.06.2022, but the respondents slept over the same and did not take any action. She submits that only after the petitioner filed a representation to take appropriate action in terms of the enquiry report, the respondents issued the impugned Notice dated 22.11.2024 to the petitioner, differing with the enquiry report. It is her contention that the Law provides that the Disciplinary Authority can differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the reasons and the grounds thereof should be communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel argues that the impugned Letter, which is supposed to be the second Show Cause Notice, differing with the enquiry report, does not highlight any ground, based on which the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the enquiry report. She submits that the petitioner superannuated w.e.f. 31.01.2025, and the proceeding has been converted to one under Rule 43 (c) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES , but the matter has still not been finally decided and is kept pending, as a result of which the petitioner has not been paid the Gratuity. She submits that the respondents have got no authority and jurisdiction to withhold full Gratuity even during pendency of the proceeding. She lastly submits that necessary documents have not been supplied to the petitioner, which prevented the petitioner to file appropriate reply.

4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the aforesaid prayer and submits that no final order has been passed in the Proceeding after its conversion under Rule 43 (b) of the JHARKHAND PENSION RULES . He submits that the impugned Letter is a Letter intimating the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, which is sufficient. So far as the documents are concerned, he submits that there is nothing to suggest as to whether these documents are relevant for the purpose of the proceeding or not. So far as withholding of Gratuity is concerned, as per him, not only the part of the Gratuity but the entire Gratuity can be withheld, if there is a proceeding pending against the petitioner.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, on 01.12.1995. After the bifurcation of State of Bihar, he was allocated the State of Jharkhand.

5.1. A Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petiti