- (1.) The petitioner while was posted as Executive Engineer, N.R.E.P, Hazaribagh, was put under suspension, vide notification No. 4987(5) dated 13.11.2002 for committing some irregularities. Subsequently, a memorandum of charges relating to said irregularities causing State exchequer to the loss to the extent of Rs. 28,79,904.10 was served and the petitioner was called upon to submit his reply. Thereupon, a detailed reply was submitted before the Chief Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Ranchi, who had been appointed as Enquiry Officer. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.12.2002. Thereafter the said departmental proceeding initiated earlier was converted into a proceeding under Section 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rule. After holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report before the respondent No. 3, Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand on 29.4.2003 whereby the Enquiry Officer did not find the petitioner guilty of any of the charges. However, the disciplinary authority, vide its order as contained in notification No. 5081(5) dated 15.10.2003 (Annexure 6) inflicted punishment whereby the order was passed to recover 20% of the total defalcated amount of Rs. 28,79,904.10 from the pension of the petitioner. That order was challenged before this Court by the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4391 of 2004. This Court after hearing the parties set aside the aforesaid order and allowed the writ application on the ground which reads as follows: I have considered the pleadings and the rival contentions and the law in this regard is well settled. The cardinal principles of natural justice mandates that there should be an application of mind and reasons has to be assigned, more so, when the disciplinary authority differs from the report/finding of the enquiry officer which is in favour of the delinquent officer. It is also well settled that a fresh notice should also be given which is termed as second show cause notice in case of any difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority. In the instant case the impugned order dated 15.10.2003 is strangely based on enquiry report which exonerates the petitioner. It does not even assign any reason for the difference of opinion and the grounds thereto as to why the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer and its report. The impugned order is clearly against the well settled principles of natural justice, illegal, arbitration and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 15.3.2003 is quashed.
(2.) Pursuant to that order, the Secretary, Road Construction Department, vide order No. 107 dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure 7) cancelled the earlier notification under which punishment had been inflicted but at the same time, directed the authority to issue a second show cause notice to the petitioner.
(3.) Pursuant to that, respondent No. 3, Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department vide its letter dated 25.5.2009 (Annexure 8) issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why not punishment be inflicted for recovery of 20% of the total defalcated amount.;