JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

Heard the parties at length.

2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash Memo No. 4657 dated 16.9.2021 (Annexure-21), whereby, the petitioner has been punished. The quantum of punishment is deduction of 10% of pension for next ten years and also it was held that apart from subsistence allowance, nothing should be paid to the petitioner for the suspension period. He further prays that full pension be paid to him and for release of 10% of gratuity, which was withheld along with full salary for the suspension period. By way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order as contained in Memo No. 667 dated 7.2.2022 issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby the order of punishmentwas affirmed.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 25.1.1979 in the Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar. The petitioner was departmentally proceeded vide resolution No. 2132 dated 21.7.1994. The charges against the petitioner are that there was defect in the construction which was being supervised by this petitioner along with defalcation of money for the period 1983-84, while he was posted at Buxer. The petitioner filed a reply denying all the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges, levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 8.3.1995 exonerated the petitioner from all four charges, levelled against him. The petitioner's suspension was revoked on 23.1.1999.

4. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the cadre of petitioner was transferred to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand and thereafter he was granted 1^st and 2^nd ACP and 3^rd MACP. He was also granted regular promotion. After superannuation on 31^st December, 2016, the petitioner's provisional gratuity and pension were assessed and sanctioned. Though the petitioner claims that the leave encashment was not paid initially, but subsequently it is an admitted that the amount of leave encashment for 300 days was paid to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner moved before this Court in WPS No. 1890 of 2018 with a prayer to finalize the pension and also for release of 10% of gratuity.The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.10.2018.

6. From the order of this Court dated 23.10.2018, it is clear that since the fate of the Departmental proceeding initiated by the State of Bihar in 1994 was not known to them, the respondent-State of Jharkhand did not release the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner. Thus, the Court directed the State of Bihar to transmit all the documents in relation to departmental proceeding to the successor State of Jharkhand within six weeks. Further, the competent authority and State of Jharkhand were directed to take a decision in the matter after taking into consideration the outcome of the departmental proceeding. The State, thereafter passed the impugned order of punishment withholding 10% of pension and further ordered that during the period which he was under suspension, except the suspension allowance, he is not entitled for any other allowances. This order is under challenge. Further, the order of the Secretary reiterating the order of punishment is also under challenge.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that without there being any material on record and without there being any grounds of difference of opinion and without issuing a show cause notice intimating the petitioner of such difference, the respondents have punished the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that when in the Departmental Proceeding, it was held that no charge is made out, the petitioner should have been exonerated. He also submits that the petitioner has not been served with any notes of disagreement with notice or second show cause notice, which would suggest that the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. F