ORDER : 1. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by respondent no.4 by which the decision was taken to deduct 10 % of the pension, and the nonpayment of other amounts relating to increments of revised pay and arrears has approached this Hon'ble Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment was imposed against the petitioner vide Memo no. 604 dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure-8) and now, at this stage, he is addressing or restraining his prayer to the first punishment i.e. of 10% of deduction of his pension. 3. The brief facts of the case, as has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner was working as an Accounts Assistant in the Electrical Supply Subdivision, Noamundi and he was placed under suspension by the authority of erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, vide Office Order No. 4796 dated 16.10.1998 and his headquarter during the period of suspension was fixed in the office of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Electric Supply Area, Ranchi. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner vide Office Order No. 1368 dated 26.03.1999 and Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental proceedings and subsequently another Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental proceedings vide Office Order No. 2456 dated 16.05.2001 of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during the pendency of departmental proceeding, the petitioner, who was under suspension, retired from service on 31.01.2002. It is further submitted that since the retiral benefits of the petitioner were not released by the respondent authorities of Jharkhand State Electricity Board, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No. 4359 of 2002 before this Hon'ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the departmental proceeding initiated by Bihar State Electricity Board was not concluded by the Enquiry Officer till the date of his retirement and after his retirement. The file of departmental proceeding was sent by the authority of Bihar State Electricity Board to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide Letter No. 2366 dated 26.10.2002 and the Dy. Director of Accounts Jharkhand State Electricity Board was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the departmental proceeding vide Office Order No. 969 dated 17.12.2002. 7. The file of departmental proceeding was sent by the authority of Bihar State Electricity Board to the Jharkhand State Electricity Board vide Letter No. 2366 dated 26.10.2002 and the Dy. Director of Accounts Jharkhand State Electricity Board was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the departmental proceeding vide Office Order No. 969 dated 17.12.2002. 7. It is further submitted that on transfer of Sri Madhup Kumar, Sri B.P. Dubey, Deputy Director of Accounts was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide Office Order No. 314 dated 01.03.2005 and vide Office Order No. 1564 dated 25.03.2005, the Board appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, but the enquiry was not concluded against the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that after disposal of Contempt Case, again vide Office Order No. 610 dated 12.04.2007, Board had appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the Authority of the Board on 08.08.2007 without examining any witness in support of charge and stating therein that charge no. 1 is partially proved but charge nos. 2 to 4 are not proved against the petitioner. 9. It is further submitted that the second show cause was issued to the petitioner vide Office Order No. 2183 dated 04.12.2007 stating therein that all the charges have been proved by the Enquiry Officer. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation to second show cause on 16.01.2008 in details but all went in vain and ultimately penalty was imposed against the petitioner vide Memo No. 604 dated 03.04.2008. It is further submitted that vide letter dated 15.04.2008 an appeal was filed before the Chairman of the Board for reconsidering the whole issue and to review the punishment, which is still pending before the Board. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court through the enquiry report and submitted that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of being heard and the enquiry report was submitted on the following charges, which lacks the attendance of witnesses and the non-supply of vital papers to the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of this Court through the enquiry report and submitted that the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of being heard and the enquiry report was submitted on the following charges, which lacks the attendance of witnesses and the non-supply of vital papers to the petitioners. Since charges 2 to 4 as per the enquiry report due to lack of evidence have not been proved, the relevant charge is charge No.1 which is translated and as; The Charged Officer between 09.04.1993 and 25.05.1996 did not make relevant entries of the money received from D.C.R. and misappropriated the Rs. 45,352.72/- of which Rs. 34,180.19/- has been deposited, while Rs. 11,172.73/- still with him. Regarding even this charge the enquiry report concludes at the end that it cannot be called misappropriation but irregularity. 11. It is further submitted that the in enquiry report, the money alleged to be misappropriated by the petitioner has been shown as Rs. 45352.72/- and out of which, Rs. 60071.49/- has already been returned by the petitioner and, hence remaining amount of Rs. 14718.77/- is lying with the department. 12. It is further submitted that more importantly the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that out of four charges levelled against the petitioner, the charge nos. 2 to 4 have not been found proved and even the allegation no.1 cannot be considered as a misappropriation but financial irregularity. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-JSEB submitted that in the enquiry report charge no. 1 was proved. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, with reference to Annexure-1 vide Memo No. 604 dated 03.04.2008 he said that all charges have been proved and reiterated para 4 of their counter affidavit. Thereafter, he has submitted that as per reply of the petitioner dated 16.01.2008 nothing new has emerged, hence, the said punishment has been proposed. He also stated that he has already retired and certain payments have been sanctioned or paid and they are on record. 15. Thereafter, he has submitted that as per reply of the petitioner dated 16.01.2008 nothing new has emerged, hence, the said punishment has been proposed. He also stated that he has already retired and certain payments have been sanctioned or paid and they are on record. 15. Having gone through the records and the arguments of the both counsels and the records particularly charge-sheet and the punishment order, it seems that the enquiry report itself has traversed the period for more than eight years, then the charge was framed on 26.03.1999 and the enquiry report was finally concluded on 08.08.2007, which is more than eight years and during this period, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2002. 16. During the time from the issuance of the charge-sheet till the conclusion of the enquiry report, around five Enquiry Officers were appointed on various dates, initially in March, 1999 Dr. Ravindra Thakur, then on March, 2001 another Enquiry Officers P.K. Bhatt, then on December 2002, Mr. Madhup Kumar, then on March, 2005 Mr. B.P. Dubey and then finally 04.02.2007 Mr. N.N. Sinha, and again finally one Madhup Kumar. Seems other enquiry officers were appointed even after he retired on 31.01.2002. 17. It seems from the enquiry report and its conclusion that charges nos. 2 to 4 have not been proved and regarding the first charge, it is only said that it is not an embezzlement or misappropriation rather it can be termed as financial irregularities. So the question of misappropriation, which is involved in this writ petition, does not seems to be made out. The disciplinary authority has passed the punishment order dated 03.04.2008 against the findings of the Enquiry Officers stating that all the charges have been proved, which controverts the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, he has mentioned that the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 16.01.2008 in which he has nothing new to reconsider. It also seems that the petitioner had preferred his appeal vide letter dated 15.04.2008 to the Chairman JSEB which is still pending. In fact, by the order of the Court it was directed as early as on 17.03.2010 that the Chairman, JSEB may make an effort to dispose of the pending appeal of the petitioner. Then finally on, 28.08.2015, this Court ruled that, if on the next date no one appears on behalf of the respondents, the matter shall be disposed of on merits. 18. Then finally on, 28.08.2015, this Court ruled that, if on the next date no one appears on behalf of the respondents, the matter shall be disposed of on merits. 18. Finally as an additional argument the petitioner had raised the question of proportionality and said that matter on which the Enquiry Officers have considered is irregularity not misappropriation and punishment has been imposed for 10% reduction in pension is immense. Moreover, for the period of suspension from 16.10.1998 till 31.01.2002, he was already on subsistence allowance and not getting his full salary, which punishment is enough. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision, in the case of Girish Bhushan Goyal Vs. B.H.E.L. & Another, as reported in 2014 (1) SCC 82 , has submitted that the issue of the proportionality of punishment was addressed, which finds the application in his case also. 20. Therefore, after looking to the records and arguments, the enquiry seems to have travelled a very much delayed and disturbing course, and enquiry officers were changed now and then, and allegedly witnesses also were lacking from the side of the Charged Officer, all the four charges are not established, and even charge no. 1 is said to be one of financial irregularity, in which it seems more money was deposited by the Charged Officer, still the punishment order dated 03.04.2008 said all charges are proved and he is punished accordingly, and thereafter, the appeal is made, which is apparently still pending with the Chairman. Hence, adding to the delay. I have also noted the reasoning in Girish Bhusan Goyal (Supra). Therefore, I hereby quash the first part of the memo no. 604 dated 03.04.2008 (Annexure-8) which indicates that 10% of the pension of the petitioner will be deducted from his pension, and thus he is entitled to full pension and other consequent benefits that may accrue thereof with statutory interest within twelve weeks of the receipt of this order by the respondents. If the respondents fail to pay the accrued amount within eight weeks, then a further additional rate of interest at 10% will be paid, thereafter. However, in view of para 5 of the reply of the JSEB, it seems that the petitioner has received his gratuity of Rs. 2,13,606/- pension of Rs. 15,202/- per month and pension arrear of Rs. If the respondents fail to pay the accrued amount within eight weeks, then a further additional rate of interest at 10% will be paid, thereafter. However, in view of para 5 of the reply of the JSEB, it seems that the petitioner has received his gratuity of Rs. 2,13,606/- pension of Rs. 15,202/- per month and pension arrear of Rs. 5,68,131/-, and it has also been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that he has been paid group insurance of Rs. 33,619/- and leave encashment. 21. Accordingly with the above observations the writ petition is allowed and disposed of.