2025:JHHC:35425 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5057 of 2017 Anirudh Narayan Singh, s/o Late Ram Chander Singh, resident of Flat No. 103, Sushila residency, Anand Puri, PO & PS-Boring Canal Road, District -Patna (Bihar) ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1 The State of Jharkhand through Commissioner, Water Resource Department, Nepal House, PO & PS -Doranda District-Ranchi 2 Additional Secretary, Govt of Jharkhand, Water Resource Department, Nepal House, PO & PS -Doranda District:-Ranchi 3.The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, PO & PS-Dumka, District-Dumka 4 The Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, PO & PS-Deoghar, District:-Deoghar 5. Special Secretary, Water Resource Department, Nepal House, PO & PS-Doranda, District:-Ranchi. 6. Superintending Engineer, Investigation & Hydrology Circle-2, PO & PS-Deoghar, District:-Deoghar 7. Chief Engineer, Advance Planning & Design, Water Resource Department, PO & PS-Ranchi, District-Ranchi … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandan Tiwari, AC to GA-I -------- JUDGMENT CAV on 09/10/2025 Pronounced on 27/11/2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. For quashing of the punishment order dated 31.1.17 Annx: 6 pursuant to the memorandum dated 15.9.12 by which 25% of pension reduction has been imposed for five years. AND/OR Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the respondents to refund the all deducted amount from pension with interest & also to recalculate the pension as per 7th pay commission report & to pay the same with arrears. AND/OR Any other order/s direction/s as Your Lordships may deem fit & proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Briefly stated, while the petitioner was posted as Assistant 2025:JHHC:35425 2 Engineer, he was given work for Ganga Pump Nahar Parmandal Sahibganj. The respondent-authorities visited the work place and certified the work on 10.08.2008. On 12.09.2012, without explanation of delay, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner after lapse of four years for the alleged irregularities committed by him in the year 2008. On 09.10.2012, the petitioner replied each and every charge levelled against him inter alia pleaded for his exoneration. Thereafter, Inquiry officer was appointed but the enquiry was not concluded. The petitioner retired from service on 30.09.2013 but the full benefits have not been paid to the petitioner and hence the petitioner preferred WP(S) No 4347 of 2014. The respondent-authorities passed the order of punishment on 31.01.2017 and reduced 25% pension for five years. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the departmental proceedings vitiate in absence of any specific provisions for its continuance after the retirement of an employee. He further submits that the Inquiry officer has never entered into the fact of the case and unilaterally in a malafide ways initiated the enquiry by totally ignoring the report submitted by the respondent no.6 which on its face appears to be manufactured and concocted, hence the entire proceedings is liable to be set aside which took the shape of punishment on 31.01.2017. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is no procedural error in the order of punishment. He further submits that enough opportunity was given to the petitioner and the order which has been passed is a well-reasoned and speaking order. As such, he submits that no interference is required. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the averments made in the respective affidavits it appears that on 30.01.2025, this Court has passed the following orders: “Prima facie from the record, it gives an impression that on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner has been punished. 2025:JHHC:35425 3 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the State seeks two weeks’ time to enquire and inform this Court as to whether any proceeding was initiated against the petitioner or not, beyond the preliminary enquiry. 3. List this case after three weeks.” Pursuant thereto; a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 28.04.2025 indicating therein that there is no procedural error and/or perversity in the order of punishment. 6. From record it appears that during the year 2008, while posted as Assistant Engineer under Ganga Pump Canal Division, Sahibganj, the petitioner was entrusted to look after the Flood Fighting Work near village Sarkanda and Narayanpur situated on right bank of river Ganga. In the execution of the said scheme, the petitioner was found guilty of misappropriation and fraudulent measurement of crate work, supply of boulders/wire resulting in financial embezzlement in totality. On the basis of a report submitted by Chief Engineer-cum- Chairman of High-Level Committee as well as Audit Report being IR No. 116 of 2010-11 submitted by Deputy Accountant General, Jharkhand; vide Memo No. 622 dated 31.12.2010, show-cause notices were issued to the connected delinquent officials including the petitioner. Subsequently, a Departmental Flying Squad was constituted to enquire into the matter with a direction to submit ground report considering the enquiry reports of Chief Engineer-cum-Chairman, High Level Committee, Audit Report and the reply of show-cause of connected officials including the petitioner. 7. The aforesaid Flying Squad submitted its report vide Memo No. 146 dated 16.06.2012 wherein, it was mentioned that excess payment of Rs. 217.78 Lakhs (Two Crore Seventeen Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand) was proved on account of serious irregularity committed by the concerned Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer along with Accounts Officer and Cashier, defying the prevailing rules/regulation and provisions of PWD Code. On careful examination of aforesaid enquiry report dated 16.06.2012, which prima-facie found the connected officials including the 2025:JHHC:35425 4 petitioner guilty, a regular departmental proceeding was initiated against all the delinquent officials. 8. It appears that departmental proceeding vide Resolution No. 5028 dated 15.09.2012 under Rule-55 of Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rule, 1930 was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry report of departmental proceeding was submitted by the Conducting Officer vide Letter No. 863 dated 25.10.2013. Meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 30.09.2013 and on approval of competent authority, the departmental proceeding was converted under Rule 43 (b) of Jharkhand Pension Rule, 2000 vide Memo No. 1069 dated 27.02.2015. It further appears that on examination of enquiry report the petitioner was found guilty of irregularity in execution of work and financial embezzlement. As such, enclosing the copy of enquiry report, second show-cause was issued to the petitioner vide Letter No. 6287 dated 22.12.2015 and the petitioner replied to the aforesaid show-cause vide his letter dated 11.01.2016. 9. A careful scrutiny of show-cause reply revealed that instead of putting his defense with substantial details against the charges levelled against him, the petitioner simply tried to litigate and misrepresent the matter with other co-delinquent elaborating their personnel rivalry. On scrutiny at department level the petitioner was found guilty with respect to levelled charges in the line of the findings of Conducting Officer. Accordingly, on approval of competent authority, the said departmental proceeding was concluded by way of imposing punishment of deduction of 25% pension of the petitioner for five years and Memo No. 584 dated 31.01.2017 was issued to the petitioner. 10. Subsequently, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner and it was decided by the appellate authority in terms of the order issued vide Memo No. 4776 dated 29.08.2019. 11. Thus, from records, it is evident that the punishment dated 31.01.2017 has been imposed upon the petitioner after conducting a 2025:JHHC:35425 5 regular departmental enquiry following due procedure of law wherein in terms of enquiry report submitted by the conducting officer, the petitioner was found guilty of charges leveled against him specifically in relation to charge nos. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 have been found proved. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after perusing the entire record, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of punishment and also the appellate order, are well-reasoned order and there is no procedural error. Accordingly, the instant writ application, being devoid of merits, is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. However, there shall be no order to cost. 13. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) November 27, 2025 Amit N.A.F.R Uploaded on 28/11 /2025