2026:JHHC:12041 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 433 of 2021 ---------- Suresh Chandra Ghosh, aged about 62 years, son of late Barho Prasad, R/o. Village Baba Path, Huruhur, P.O. Hazaribag, P.S. Hazaribag, Dist. Hazaribag, Jharkhand. ………. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Bhavan, P.O.+P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Accountant General of Jharkhand, P.O.+P.S. Doranda, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishikesh Giri, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr.SC-II Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate ---------- 22/ 23.04.2026 The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order passed vide resolution No. 2443 dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure-6), whereby an order of punishment has been imposed by deducting 10% of pension for 5 years under Rule-43(b) of Jharkhand Pension Rules. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who was working as District Superintendent of Education, on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 30.04.2019. Thereafter, a charge- sheet was issued on 23.05.2019 and departmental proceeding was initiated. In the departmental proceeding, the charges were proved and finally, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of deduction of 10% of pension for 5 years. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court towards a gazette notification dated 05.04.2016, issued by the 2026:JHHC:12041 2 Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa Department and directly pointed out Rule-17 of the Part-VI which deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. 4. Learned counsel submits that Rule-17(4) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rule-2016), clearly stipulates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver the copy of charge-sheet along with list of documents and list of witnesses and shall require the government service to submit reply for his defence and also whether he is entitled to be heard in person. 5. Learned counsel contended that the 2nd part of Rule-17(4) of Rules, 2016, has not been complied, inasmuch as, no show-cause was ever issued asking for reply before an enquiry proceeds. His next contention is that in the punishment order though 10% of pension has been reduced but no show-cause was issued for proposed punishment and further there is no quantification to that effect, inasmuch as, why only 10% has been deducted; in other words, it might be 5% or it might be 15%, therefore, the law requires that there should be a quantification if there is any monetary reduction. 6. In reply to the same, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that sufficient opportunities were given and there is no procedural error. The Inquiry Officer has given ample opportunity to this petitioner and after hearing him at length, he submitted report to the effect that charges have been proved and only thereafter, punishment has been imposed. However, on the issue of issuance of show-cause before the enquiry commence, he is unable to demonstrate the same by any document. Though, copy of entire enquiry proceeding is annexed with the supplementary counter-affidavit filed on 09.08.2024, but none of the order-sheets and/or none of the documents can 2026:JHHC:12041 3 remotely indicate that show-cause was issued prior to initiation of enquiry proceeding by the Inquiry Officer. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, the contention of the petitioner can be summarized as under: i) Rule-17(4) of the Rules, 2016, has not been complied. ii) No Show-Cause has been issued for proposed punishment. iii) The quantification has not been made, which is necessary in such type of cases. 8. So far as the contention No. (i) is concerned, it is profitable to extract Rule-17(4) of the Rules, 2016. The same is extracted herein below: “17(4). The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, such statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government Servant to submit, within such time as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person.” 9. After going through the aforesaid Rule, it is clear that apart from handing over the charge-sheet, statement of imputation, list of documents and, list of witness, the respondent-Department shall require the government servant to submit a written statement. The word used is “shall”; meaning thereby to say, it is a condition precedent for an employer to ask for a reply/written statement from the employee before he is sent to the Inquiry Officer. 10. As aforesaid, there is no document to suggest that any show- cause notice was issued asking for a reply. As such, the first contention of the petitioner appears to be valid and this Court holds that the procedure adopted by the respondents in not issuing any show-cause notice and asking for written statement is bad in law. Accordingly, the impugned order fails on this score along. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Murari Bhagat Vs. 2026:JHHC:12041 4 State of Jharkhand & Ors.1, paras 14 and 15 of which reads as under: “14. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 2016 it appears that, (a) The disciplinary authority is to frame or get framed definite and distinct article of charge containing the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior as also statement of allegation containing all relevant facts in support of article of charge as also a list of witnesses and a list of documents; (b) The disciplinary authority is to serve the article of charge, statement of allegation, etc. on the government servant and is to call for a written statement of defence thereto from him; (c) On receipt of the written statement of defense the disciplinary authority is to then consider the same and decide whether to hold enquiry into the article of charge or not and in case, on a consideration it decides to hold enquiry then it could be by itself or through an enquiry officer; and (d) Once the disciplinary authority after such consideration decides to hold an enquiry through an enquiry officer then it is to transmit the records to the enquiry officer including the article of charge, statement of allegation, written defence of the government servant. 15. 15. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid rules it is crystal clear that in the instant case mandatory procedure has been violated as the disciplinary authority prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding vide resolution dated 04.08.2017, did not call-upon the petitioner to submit his written defence statement to the article of charge so as to decide whether to proceed further by holding an enquiry or not. It can be comfortably inferred that the disciplinary authority not calling before itself the written statement of defence of the petitioner to the article of charge and also appointing an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer simultaneously thereunder with direction to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer, shows a clear predisposition and predetermination on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry against the petitioner without even waiting for his defence. The disciplinary authority acquiring jurisdiction to order for an enquiry to be held by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, the issue of waiver or acquiescence on behalf of the petitioner in the above proceeding does not arise.” 11. So far as the contention No. (ii) & (iii) are concerned; after perusing the impugned order and after going through the Annexure-H of the counter-affidavit, it appears that the said procedure has also not been followed, as the Show-Cause Notice for proposed punishment was not given and secondly, the 1 W.P.(S) No. 1054 of 2019, decided on 11.07.2019 2026:JHHC:12041 5 punishment of pecuniary loss has also not been quantified. In this regard reference may be made to the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Poonam Prasad2, paras 28 & 40 of which reads as under: 28. This Court, however, is not in agreement with such finding even though there is stipulation to that effect in the Rule 43(b) that the State reserves its right to withhold whole or part of pension if due to misconduct either in the departmental or judicial proceeding, the State has sustained pecuniary loss. It is not that only in the case of pecuniary loss the provision of Rule 43(b) is to be made applicable in view of the judgment rendered by this court in L.P.A. No. 79 of 2013 [The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Jitendra Prasad Sharma] wherein, by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. B. Dev, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 691, wherein also a contention was raised that if pecuniary loss has not been caused to the Government, no order of withholding/withdrawing the pension can be made which was held unsustainable. For ready reference, paragraph-12 and 13 of the judgment rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 79 of 2013 reads as under: “12. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable. Power of the Government, to recover from pension in a case where pecuniary loss is caused, is independent and in addition to the power to withdraw or withhold pension. In “Union of India and Others Vs. B. Dev”, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 691, a similar contention was raised that if pecuniary loss has not been caused to the Government, no order of withholding/withdrawing the pension can be made and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting the said contention observed thus : 11. “Rule 9 gives to the President the right of – (1) withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, (2) either permanently or for a specified period, and (3) ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government. This power can be exercised if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. The power, therefore, can be exercised in all cases where the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. One of the powers of the President is to recover from pension, in a case where any pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, 2 L.P.A. No. 117 of 2022, decided on 06.10.2023 2026:JHHC:12041 6 that loss. This is an independent power in addition to the power of withdrawing or withholding pension. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that Rule 9 cannot be invoked even in cases of grave misconduct unless pecuniary loss is caused to the Government, is unsustainable.” 13. We accordingly hold that applicability of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules cannot be restricted only to the cases in which pecuniary loss has been suffered by the Government.” But, herein, it is to be seen that the pecuniary loss even though the same is not there and in case of proved misconduct the rule 43(b) will be held applicable but when the rule 43(b) provides that the State reserves its right to withhold whole or part of pension if the State has sustained pecuniary loss due to the conduct of the public servant, a thorough assessment of the loss is to be done so that the State comes to the conclusion that to what extent, the pension is to be withheld either whole or part of it. The State in view thereof, is having duty to make exercise to that effect before issuance of second show cause notice by referring therein the proposed punishment of withholding of whole pension or part of it by justifying the reason. The State is required to make reference of the same in the second show cause notice that due to the misconduct committed by the pensioner, the State has sustained loss so as to recover the same to that extent. ………….. …………. 40. Further, the show cause notice which has been issued by the authority withholding pension to the extent of 15% also lacks the basis of withholding the pension to the extent of 15% in absence of any calculation of loss sustained said to be pecuniary.” 12. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure-6), requires to be quashed and set aside and accordingly, it is quashed. 13. Before parting, it is necessary to address the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-State that at least the matter may be remitted to the concerned authority to rectify the procedural error. 14. This Court is not accepting the said prayer, inasmuch as, the petitioner has retired in the year 2019 itself and after a gap of 7 years, this Court does not feel correct to give a chance of second inning to the respondents. 2026:JHHC:12041 7 15. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund all the deducted amount which was done pursuant to the impugned order, if any, which has already been quashed, and pay the same within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 16. In the result, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 23rd April, 2026 Kunal/- Uploaded on 04.05.2026