Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Pandey appearing for the respondent.

2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of punishment in the nature of recovery of money @ 2% from the pension of the petitioner who has already retired from service. The reason accorded for imposing this punishment is that the proposed punishment in the show-cause notice was to the effect as to why entry of sensor and permanent stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect may not be awarded.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer with the respondent, was served with a charge sheet with two articles of charges: one with regard to his work and conduct; and second a consequential loss to the department, while posted at Vidyut Nagariya Vitran Khand, Ghaziabad in respect of the distribution and supply of electricity in Green Park Colony. In the inquiry report dated 5.12.2006, which was conducted by the enquiry committee, the petitioner was exonerated of all the two charges. However, the Executive Engineer disagreed with the findings of the inquiry report and consequently issued a show-cause notice on 8.1.2008 and it has come in the said notice that electricity supply costing Rs. 9,27,800/- were made wholly illegally by committing gross illegality by the delinquent employee. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5.2.2008 and the point No. 5 of the reply did contain about the fact that the petitioner was never given any direction to carry out any task with regard to the scheme GPT (AAB), API, NICC and consequently he did not carry out any such charge and could not be held guilty for the same. The Under Secretary/ disciplinary authority forwarded this reply particularly para (v) to the Executive Engineer for verification vide letter dated 4.3.2009 and the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 31.3.2009 reported to the disciplinary authority that the reply of the petitioner (V) as contained in his reply to the show-cause notice was correct. The petitioner had already retired in the meanwhile on 31.12.2008. However, another show-cause notice was issued to him on 21.10.2009 to the effect as to why penalty of recovery of 2% of money from the pension may not be ordered in place of the earlier proposed punishment of entry of sensor and permanent stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice dated 21.10.2009 that he has already submitted detailed reply and the necessary verification has already been got done at the end of disciplinary authority from the Executive Engineer and in case if any further verification of the documents was required that could have been done at the same time by the authority concerned.

4. After the reply was submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.4.2010 imposing penalty in the nature of recovery @ 2% from the pension of the petitioner permanently. From the perusal of impugned order it is clearly depicted that the disciplinary authority has acted in very casual manner as inspite of first inquiry report in which the petitioner was exonerated of the two charges yet the disciplinary authority proceeded to issue a show-cause notice making a statement to the effect that it disagreed with the findings of the inquiry committee. The first show-cause notice dated 8.1.2008 which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition states in the following manner:

^^mi;qZDr ds lanHkZ esa eq>s dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd dkjiksjs'ku ds mDr i= la[;k 3784&f'kŒtkWŒ&05lh@ikdkfy@06&7¼3½05lh@2000 fnukad 05-12-2006 ds vuqØe esa tkap lfefr dh tkap vk[;k ls vlger gksrs gq, dkjiksjs'ku Lrj ij izfØ;k ds ijh{k.kksijkUr vkids fo:) fuEufyf[kr vkjksi fl