ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. This is the petitioners second writ application in the same matter. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the resolution No. 106, dated 7.10.2003 whereby it has been held that the State was put to the lose of a sum of Rs. 1,88,153/- by not removing the forest produce from the coups and the petitioner and two others have been held guilty of causing the said loss and the petitioner has been given two fold punishment :--(i) deduction of 10% of the pension amount; (ii) recovery of 50% of the amount of Rs. 1,88,153/- from his retrial dues. 2. The petitioner retired on 31.1.2000 as Forest Range Officer on attaining the age of superannuation from State Trading Division, Garhwa, While the petitioner was in service, he was served with a memo of charge dated 19.6.1997 whereby it was, inter alia, alleged that while he was posted as Range Officer, Serikella, Logging Range, Kandra, the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 1,88,153/- for the fault of the petitioner for not removing the logs from the coups. The petitioner in his reply had denied the charges and stated, inter alia, that it was none of his faults, but because of the geographical condition and the difficult terrain, it was not possible to remove all the woods/goods from the coups. He had duly informed the higher authorities about the said condition immediately. It was also stated that there were seven Foresters and eleven Munshis working and were in the charge of the eleven coups while the petitioner was in charge of only two coups. Stand of the petitioner is that he had directed all the Foresters to extract all the woods, but the same could not be possible for the reasons aforesaid. 3. After the inquiry, the petitioner was held guilty of causing the loss and by order dated 24.5.2001, the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding of 10% of the pension amount and for recovery of Rs. 1,88,153/- from his retrial dues. The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P. (S) No. 3465 of 2001 on the ground that there was no due inquiry, in accordance with law and the findings were not based on any evidence and there was violation of the principles of natural justice in holding the said inquiry. 1,88,153/- from his retrial dues. The petitioner had challenged the said order in W.P. (S) No. 3465 of 2001 on the ground that there was no due inquiry, in accordance with law and the findings were not based on any evidence and there was violation of the principles of natural justice in holding the said inquiry. This Court, after due consideration of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, had held that the inquiry report was not based on evidence and only, the submissions of the presenting officer were relied upon without any basis. The order of punishment was thus quashed and liberty was given to the respondents, to proceed and pass order in accordance with law, within a period of six months. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure 6, thereupon has been passed which has been challenged in this writ application. By the said Annexure 6, this time, three person, including the petitioner, have been held guilty of causing the said loss and liability has been apportioned. Now 50% of the said amount of Rs. 1,88,153/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner and the balance 50% from two foresters--Raghubar Mishra and Nand Deo Ram, It has been stated that the same errors have been repeated and again without any legal basis and material on record an illegal order has been passed. It has been contended that by this impugned order, although there was no fresh material on record, three persons have been held guilty of causing the alleged amount of loss. According to the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show as to how the loss has been calculated and apportioned among the three persons. And on what basis the petitioner has been awarded punishment of recovery of 50% of the amount of Rs. 1,88,153/- coupled with deduction of 10% from his pension amount. 4. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the respondents have passed the impugned order whimsically without any fresh material or further inequity. He submitted that earlier, on the basis of the same inquiry report, the petitioner alone was held guilty and this time, three persons have been held guilty of causing loss to the Government. He submitted that earlier, on the basis of the same inquiry report, the petitioner alone was held guilty and this time, three persons have been held guilty of causing loss to the Government. Learned counsel submits that two contradictory decisions on the same set of facts and material on record vitiates the propriety of the impugned order and renders the same perverse and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the amount of loss and the quantum of liability has been arbitrarily and illegally fixed by the impugned order, without any sound basis which is wholly unsustainable, and liable to be quashed by this Court. 5. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, on the other hand, submitted that there are sufficient materials on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner and that the order is mostly based on the admission of the petitioner himself. According to her, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as, the same is based on materials on record. Learned counsel submitted that there are evidences coupled with the admission of the petitioner that the Government has suffered the said loss. However, the learned counsel submitted that though there is no material to show as to how the amount of loss is calculated and how the liability has been apportioned amongst three persons, yet the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the inquiry report. Although, on the same material and evidences the petitioner alone was held guilty, when this Court quashed the earlier order, all the records were again reviewed and considered and now three person have been found guilty. However, learned counsel submitted that the apportionment has been made on the basis of the contributory negligence though the same could not be recorded in the impugned order. Learned counsel citing a decision in Faiyaz Ahmad v. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1991 (I) PLJR 289, submitted that if the delinquent is held guilty of any loss in the departmental proceedings initiated while he was in service and after proper inquiry if he is found responsible for causing pecuniary loss to the State, the authorities are fully competent to either forfeit portion and/or whole of the pecuniary amount to compensate the extent of loss caused to the Government. Learned counsel, referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik, reported in 2002 (3) JLJR (SC) 68, and submitted that if the negligence of a delinquent results in heavy loss and his willful violation of the procedure prescribed under the rules result in heavy expenditure, the negligence in duty amounts to misconduct and consequences may be directly attributed to the negligence of the delinquent. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and considered their submissions as well as the facts and materials on record, I find that the impugned order does not speak about the basis of calculating the amount of loss. There is not an iota of evidence or any material on record to provide the basis for apportionment of the liability on the different delinquents and for holding the petitioner liable for 50% of the total alleged loss alone while two others jointly for remaining 50%. While passing its order dated 3.2.2003 in W.P. (S) No. 3465 of 2001, this Court had the occasion to consider the inquiry report. It was found that the said inquiry report was not based on any evidence and the order of punishment was passed on the basis of bare submissions of the Presenting Officer. While quashing the said order, this Court had given an opportunity to the respondents to pass order in accordance with law. But again, on the basis of the same inquiry report and without any application of mind, the impugned order of punishment has been passed by the respondents. While passing the said order, and this time holding the petitioner guilty, jointly with others the petitioner was not given any opportunity of representation and hearing. The order is cryptic, non-speaking and based on no reasons, The impugned order (Annexure 6) being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is unsustainable and is quashed. 7. The petitioner has complained that since December, 2002 payment of even provisional pension has been stopped and no reason has been assigned for the same. In the counter affidavit the said fact has not been denied. In view of the above discussion and order passed herein, I find no reason for depriving the petitioner of his retrial dues including pension. The petitioner has complained that since December, 2002 payment of even provisional pension has been stopped and no reason has been assigned for the same. In the counter affidavit the said fact has not been denied. In view of the above discussion and order passed herein, I find no reason for depriving the petitioner of his retrial dues including pension. I, therefore, direct the respondents to pay all the retiral dues and arrears of pension with statutory interest to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and thereafter to regularly pay his monthly pension until otherwise directed by any order passed in a proceeding in accordance with law. 8. If the said amounts are not paid within the said period, the petitioner shall be further entitled to get compensatory interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date the amount was due till the date of actual payment. The Government will be at liberty to fix liability and recover the amount of the compensatory interest from the erring official (s). Ordered accordingly.