JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging resolution dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure 1), issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board’ for the sake of brevity) under the signature of its Joint Secretary, by which punishment of withholding 2% pension had been awarded to him and also challenging order dated 18.05.2002 (Annexure 2), by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Board. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that the aforesaid punishment is quite disproportionate against the nonest charges of any financial loss. It is further claimed that the said punishment is discriminatory as in similar circumstances the petitioner’s successor has been exonerated. It is also averred that the authorities must pay the deducted amount of pension from the date of retirement till the date of payment along with exemplary interest and cost of litigation. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on six charges of gross misconduct enumerated in the charge-sheet as the proceeding was initiated on 03.08.1994 (Annexure 3) during the service period of the petitioner and after his retirement it was converted under section 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’ for the sake of brevity) for the purposes of punishment. 4. It is also stated by him that on 28.12.1995 (Annexure 4) enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer and after considering the enquiry report, second show cause notice was given on 19.06.1998, whereafter, the petitioner submitted his second show cause on 26.08.1998 (Annexure 5) and hence after considering the materials on record including the enquiry report, the authorities passed the impugned order dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure 1) inflicting the aforesaid punishment. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents claimed that earlier notice was given to the petitioner for punishment of 5% deduction, but subsequently taking a lenient view the authorities ordered only deduction of 2% pension. It was also stated that the punishment to the petitioner was necessary as he was found to have violated the financial Rules. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Darbhanga between the period 1988-1991 and subsequently he finally retired from service on 31.12.1995. 6. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it transpires that the petitioner was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Darbhanga between the period 1988-1991 and subsequently he finally retired from service on 31.12.1995. In the meantime, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide resolution no. 1550 dated 03.08.1994 (Annexure 3) for six charges as detailed in charge-sheet dated 21.07.1994. Thereafter the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and submitted his written statement denying all the charges, whereafter deposition of prosecution witnesses and cross-examination etc. were held and the enquiry officer submitted his finding vide report dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure 4). The said report was challenged by the petitioner in his second show cause submitted on 26.08.1998 (Annexure 5) in reply to notice dated 19.06.1998 issued by the authorities vide resolution no.841. Finally the impugned order of punishment was passed by the authority on 16.11.1998(Annexure 1), which was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.05.2002 (Annexure 2). 7. From the enquiry report dated 28.12.1995 (Annexure 4), it is quite apparent that the enquiry officer had found that the petitioner sanctioned estimates with good intention to attend urgent repair work and to improve the power supply and the work of construction of Control Room of 33/11 KV Power Substation, Urban Division, Darbhanga was correctly taken up by the proceedee in accordance with the provision of the Board. Hence it was found that the question of manipulation, as raised by the Audit against the petitioner, did not appear to be correct and since the required security deposit was realized from the contractors from the running A/C bill and work was completed within normal course, no adverse intention of the petitioner can be inferred in the matter. Finally it was held that in the opinion of the enquiry officer, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the defalcation. 8. The aforesaid report clearly showed that the petitioner had passed orders with good intention to attend the urgent repair work and to improve power supply etc. and no adverse intention of the petitioner was found and the required amount was also realized from the contractors and hence there was no loss to the Board. Furthermore, there is no other enquiry report on the basis of which any adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner or against the enquiry report. 9. and no adverse intention of the petitioner was found and the required amount was also realized from the contractors and hence there was no loss to the Board. Furthermore, there is no other enquiry report on the basis of which any adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner or against the enquiry report. 9. In the second show cause of the petitioner dated 26.08.1998 (Annexure 5), the entire matter as aforesaid had been described in detail, but the impugned order dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure 1) itself reveals that it was passed without considering the enquiry report and the petitioner’s show cause in that regard and the order of punishment of withholding 2% pension was passed. Consequently, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority on 18.05.2002 (Annexure 2)due to similar non-consideration. 10. The provision of Rule 43(b) of the Rules is attracted only in case of grave misconduct and pecuniary loss but no such ground is present either in the report or even in the impugned orders, rather it is an admitted fact, never denied in any report or order, that no pecuniary loss was caused to the Board. It has been held that if by an action of a person no loss is caused, there cannot be a misconduct. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India & Ors. vrs. J. Ahmad, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1022, in which the Court has noted that the definition of misconduct given in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, is as follows :- “Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not constitute such misconduct”. 11. In the said circumstances, no pecuniary loss having been caused to the Board nor any misconduct or negligence, much less a grave misconduct, was shown to have been committed by the petitioner, the provision of section 43(b) of the Rules will not be attracted nor any punishment can be legally given to the petitioner under the said Rules. 12. 11. In the said circumstances, no pecuniary loss having been caused to the Board nor any misconduct or negligence, much less a grave misconduct, was shown to have been committed by the petitioner, the provision of section 43(b) of the Rules will not be attracted nor any punishment can be legally given to the petitioner under the said Rules. 12. In addition to the aforesaid position, the deduction of pension is a punishment, which causes huge loss to a retired person and hence any order inflicting such punishment must be passed only after holding that the allegations were grave and for that elaborate reasons must be given and speaking orders must be passed, but in the instant case the original order and the appellate order are non-speaking orders without giving any reason for such action and without even considering as to whether allegations against the petitioner were grave although the said orders were passed contrary to the findings given in the enquiry report. 13. Hence, on this score also, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. Reference in this regard may be made to two decisions of this Court and one decision of the Apex Court in case of Sri Madhusudan Paswan vrs. State of Bihar & others, reported in 1989 P.L.J.R. 157; in case of Sahdeo Sahu vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (1) P.L.J.R. 123 and in case of S. N. Mukherjee vrs. Union of India, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984. 14. The third issue involved in this case is the ground of discrimination. From the charge-sheet as well as from the proceeding, it transpires that B. K. Maldahiyar was a co-proceedee along with the petitioner and a comparative reading of the enquiry report in case of the petitioner dated 28.12.1995(Annexure 4) and the enquiry report in case of B. K. Maldahiyar dated 12.03.1996 (Annexure 10) shows that the case of B. K. Maldahiyar was worse than the case of the petitioner as several charges including charges no. 2,3,4 and 5 against the said person were found to have been proved, but inspite of that punishment given to B. K. Maldahiyar vide resolution of the Board dated 19.06.1998 was merely a warning to be careful in future. Such discrimination is clearly arbitrary and perverse. 15. The Apex Court in case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. vrs. Such discrimination is clearly arbitrary and perverse. 15. The Apex Court in case of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seeds Growers Union Ltd. vrs. Shailesh Kumar Harshadbhai Shah, reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 548 had specifically held that when identical allegations are against two persons, both of them should be treated on the same footing and should be given the same punishments. 16. Considering the matter as aforesaid in its entirety, it is held that the order of punishment had been passed not only disregarding the enquiry report, but also in violation of the provisions of Rule 43(b) of the Rules and was mala fide due to discrimination against the petitioner. Hence the impugned orders of awarding punishment and rejecting the appeal dated 16.11.1998 and 18.05.2002, passed by the authorities of the Board respectively, cannot be held to be sustainable in law and are, accordingly, quashed and this writ petition is allowed with a direction to respondent-authorities to pay the deducted 2% pension to the petitioner from the date of retirement till the last date of deduction within two months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.