2025:JHHC:11432-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.23 of 2024 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 5. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 6. The Under Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 7. The Technical Secretary to the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. ... Appellant Versus 1. Tara Sinha, D/o Inder Prasad Sinha, R/o Nalanda Colony, Thana- Rajiv Nagar, P.O.-Vetnarary College, P.S.-Khajpura, Rukanpura, Patna (Bihar). ... Respondent 2. The Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 3. The Officer on Special Duty, Secretariat of the Chief Minister, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. 4. The Project Officer, MESO, Khunti Sub-Division, Ranchi (Now Khunti). 5. The Executive Magistrate (SDO), Bhundu Sub-Division, Bundu, Ranchi. 6. The Circle Officer, Sonahatu Block, Bundu Sub-Division, Ranchi. 7. The Accountant General (A&E), Ranchi. 8. The Deputy Secretary, Finance (Treasury), Ranchi. 9. The Treasury Officer, Ranchi. ... Performa/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, Advocate For the Res.-State: Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C. to G.P.-V --------- 2025:JHHC:11432-DB 06/Dated: 15.04.2025 M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.(Oral) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dt. 22.02.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.6621 of 2012. 3. The respondent had approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 12.11.2011 as contained in Memo No.7435(s) issued by the then Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby 10% deduction from pension of the respondent has been ordered. 4. In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge noted that disciplinary proceeding was conducted against the respondent by the appellants and the respondent was, in fact, exonerated by the Enquiry Officer, but the Disciplinary Authority differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of the charges and on that basis, the impugned order was passed withholding the pensionary benefits of the respondent. 5. Learned Single Judge in the impugned order has held as under: 6. “Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that a full-fledged departmental enquiry/proceeding was initiated by the respondents and in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. Surprisingly, the Disciplinary Authority without differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the charges. From the impugned order dated 12.11.2011, it appears that an error of record has been committed by the respondents by holding the petitioner guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer in view of enquiry report dated 16.05.2008, wherein it is clearly held that petitioner has been exonerated from the charges by the Enquiry Officer. Though a second show cause has been issued by the Disciplinary Authority, but no reasons have been assigned for holding the petitioner guilty of the 2025:JHHC:11432-DB charges for inflicting the major punishment of withholding of 10 % pensionary benefits. Admittedly, in the charge, the allegation against the petitioner is for construction of hostel building at other places where the foundation was laid, but there is no document on record, where the foundation was laid and petitioner has not constructed the said Hostel on that foundation. Further, the construction work was not done in a day, the Higher Authorities were very much aware that hostel is being constructed and amount was also released by the Higher Official after inspection of the same and there is no allegation of defalcation of any amount. There is no pecuniary loss to the State exchequer rather the work was completed and payment was also made to the satisfaction of the respondents. Further, regarding allegation of disobedience of the Court’s order is concerned, when there is a stay order, same could have been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, by issuing instruction by Higher Officials as petitioner was not a party in that case, it can be termed to be a communication gap and as such, petitioner cannot be held guilty. The ingredients of Rule 43 (b) is not attracted in the case of the petitioner since petitioner has already been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and there was no pecuniary loss to the State Exchequer. Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules reads as under:- 43(b) The State Govt further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Govt if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Govt by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.” 6. The counsel for the appellants did not dispute the fact that the respondent was exonerated from all the charges by the Enquiry Officer, but without differing with the said finding, the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges. 7. Therefore, the action of the appellants cannot be sustained under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar/Jharkhand Pension Rules invoked by the appellants and would not apply in the instant case as has rightly been held by the learned Single Judge. The respondent has 2025:JHHC:11432-DB already been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and there is no pecuniary loss caused to the State Exchequer. 8. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Satish/Vikas/Cp.2