2026:JHHC:63 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 07 of 2022 ------ Sudhir Kumar Sinha, son of late Hari Nandan Prasad, resident of A 32/38 Kusumpuram Colony Ward No. 37, P.O Danapur Cantt., P.S. Rupaspur, District- Patna, Bihar. … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 4. The Engineer In-Chief, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 5. The Executive Engineer, Auranga Construction Division, Panki at Daltonganj, P.O and P.S. Medininagar, District- Palamau. 6. The Accountant General (A&E), Jharkhand, Doranda, Ranchi. ... Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, Advocate. For the State Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG For A.G. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate. ----- 21/05.01.2026: Heard the parties at length. 2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash Memo No. 4657 dated 16.9.2021 (Annexure-21), whereby, the petitioner has been punished. The quantum of punishment is deduction of 10% of pension for next ten years and also it was held that apart from subsistence allowance, nothing should be paid to the petitioner for the suspension period. He further prays that full pension be paid to him and for release of 10% of gratuity, which was withheld along with full salary for the suspension period. By way of amendment, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order as contained in Memo No. 667 dated 7.2.2022 issued by the Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, whereby the order of punishment was affirmed. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 25.1.1979 in the Water Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar. The petitioner was departmentally proceeded vide resolution No. 2132 dated 21.7.1994. The charges against the petitioner are that there was defect in the construction which was being supervised by this petitioner along with defalcation of money for the period 1983-84, while he was posted at Buxer. The petitioner 1. filed a reply denying all the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges, levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer vide his report dated 8.3.1995 exonerated the petitioner from all four charges, levelled against him. The petitioner's suspension was revoked on 23.1.1999. 4. After the bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the cadre of petitioner was transferred to the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand and thereafter he was granted 1st and 2nd ACP and 3rd MACP. He was also granted regular promotion. After superannuation on 31st December, 2016, the petitioner's provisional gratuity and pension were assessed and sanctioned. Though the petitioner claims that the leave encashment was not paid initially, but subsequently it is an admitted that the amount of leave encashment for 300 days was paid to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner moved before this Court in WPS No. 1890 of 2018 with a prayer to finalize the pension and also for release of 10% of gratuity. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.10.2018. 6. From the order of this Court dated 23.10.2018, it is clear that since the fate of the Departmental proceeding initiated by the State of Bihar in 1994 was not known to them, the respondent-State of Jharkhand did not release the entire retiral benefits to the petitioner. Thus, the Court directed the State of Bihar to transmit all the documents in relation to departmental proceeding to the successor State of Jharkhand within six weeks. Further, the competent authority and State of Jharkhand were directed to take a decision in the matter after taking into consideration the outcome of the departmental proceeding. The State, thereafter passed the impugned order of punishment withholding 10% of pension and further ordered that during the period which he was under suspension, except the suspension allowance, he is not entitled for any other allowances. This order is under challenge. Further, the order of the Secretary reiterating the order of punishment is also under challenge. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that without there being any material on record and without there being any grounds of difference of opinion and without issuing a show cause notice intimating the petitioner of such difference, the respondents have punished the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that when in the Departmental Proceeding, it was held that no charge is made out, the petitioner should have been 2. exonerated. He also submits that the petitioner has not been served with any notes of disagreement with notice or second show cause notice, which would suggest that the Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Further he claims that after five years of superannuation, the impugned order has been passed, which is illegal. It is also submitted that the petitioner also filed a reply praying therein to be exonerated on the ground that the misconduct which has been attributed to the petitioner does not relate to work, which was assigned to the petitioner and a request was made to provide the documents, which according to the State, proved the charge against the petitioner. He further submits that since those documents were never supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner could not have been punished. 8. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that when the file was transmitted to the State of Jharkhand, it was found that the second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.7.2003 giving the points of disagreement. He further submits that second show cause was given to the petitioner, the petitioner gave a reply and considering the same, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. 9. After hearing the parties, I find that the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the State of Bihar. In the Departmental Enquiry, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he submitted his report. There were four charges against the petitioner. From the enquiry report, which is at pages 40-42, it is quite clear that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner in relation to all the charges. 10. The law is well settled, if an Enquiry Officer exonerates the delinquent employee, the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the report of such exoneration. He can differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The law also provides that if the Disciplinary Authority differs with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he has to record the reasons as to why he is differing and thereafter issue a notice to the delinquent employee highlighting the points of difference. This procedure is for complying the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 at paragraph 19 has held as under: “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on 3. any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 11. In this case, I find from the counter affidavit, filed by the State that a notice was issued to the petitioner and the said notice is at page 35 (Annexure-B series of the counter affidavit). After going through the said notice, I find that the Disciplinary Authority simply reiterated the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned or provided any of the grounds, on which, he is differing with the enquiry report. In a case, where the Disciplinary Authority is differing with the enquiry report, he has to give his reasonings and the grounds on which, is he differing with the findings of the enquiry report specifically. The Disciplinary Authority cannot reiterate and rely on the charge, which was levelled against the delinquent employee. He has to specifically spell out why he is differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. This aspect is missing in this case. No ground has been mentioned by the Disciplinary Authority as to why he is not accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer or he is differing with the same. Thus, the notice which the State projects to be the second show cause notice cannot be accepted by this Court to be a proper notice. 12. Further, from the enquiry report, I find that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. The glaring aspect I find from the enquiry report is that there is no whisper of any evidence either documentary or oral. Though in the counter affidavit, it has been mentioned that during the enquiry process the evidence was collected, but the enquiry report does not reflect such evidence. It is quite clear that if a charge is supposed to be established against the delinquent employee, the same has to be through either oral evidence or documentary evidence. 13. Thus, from what has been held above, I find that the second show cause notice which the respondents are relying upon cannot be said to be a proper notice under the law. Further, I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that there are cogent ground to differ with the finding of the 4. Enquiry Officer. There is specific finding given by the Enquiry Officer that the work for which the petitioner has been charged, was not related to him. This is a question of fact. If the charge was not related to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority should have explained as to how the same is related to the petitioner, but this has not been done in this case. 14. Considering what has been held above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order of punishment vide Memo No. 4657 dated 16.9.2021 and the order as contained in Memo No. 667 dated 7.2.2022, by which, the punishment has been confirmed, are set aside. Since the petitioner has already superannuated in the year 2016 and he is nearly about 70 years, it would not be proper to remand the matter to the respondents to give opportunity to them to explain as to how they differ with the findings of the enquiry report, moreso, the enquiry report is based on the fact and also finding that the work for which the petitioner was subjected to the Departmental Proceeding is not related to the petitioner. Consequently, I directed the State to release the balance amount of pension and gratuity to the petitioner. Further full salary for the suspension period also be paid to the petitioner. The entire retiral benefits should be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of superannuation of the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 16. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 05th January, 2026 (ANANDA SEN, J.) Anu/-Cp2. A.F.R. Uploaded on: 12.01.2026 5.