By Order : In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction for quashing the order dated 15.09.2010 as contained in Memo No. 2518/M, Ranchi issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 3), pertaining to imposition of punishment of reduction of grade pay from Rs. 6600/- to 4800/- on initial basic pay scale of Rs.9300/- from basic pay scale of Rs.24,192/- thereby causing loss of basic pay of Rs.14,892/- per month and for further direction upon the respondent authorities to release the full salary including subsistence allowance for the period spent under suspension. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition, an Interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 4119 of 2010, seeking necessary amendment, formal in nature, was allowed vide order dated 06.12.2010. 3. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that, the petitioner joined the service of the respondent (the then State of Bihar) on the post of Mines Inspector in the year 1977. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Mining Officer, Bokaro on 21.07.2009 and the petitioner was allegedly apprehended for receiving illegal gratification. Pursuant thereto, a case under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was instituted against the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide order dated 21.08.2009. Articles of charges against the petitioner were framed on 17.12.2009. Vide Notification dated 17.12.2009, the departmental proceeding was also initiated and the Presiding Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer was appointed. Thereafter the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report vide his letter dated 3.3.2010 in terms of which the allegation against the petitioner were not found to be proved. It has been stated that the copy of the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner, rather the petitioner has obtained the same under the provisions of Right to Information Act on 17th August, 2010. It has been stated that however, the respondents disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and served a second show-cause upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his 2nd show-cause reply within 10 days. It has been stated that however, the respondents disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and served a second show-cause upon the petitioner, directing him to submit his 2nd show-cause reply within 10 days. It has been further averred that the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent no.2 on 18.8.2010, requesting for extending time to furnish the reply as well as requested the respondents to furnish certain documents, which would be necessary for proper reply to the show-cause. It has been stated that the respondents have not provided time to the petitioner and no order was passed on the representation of the petitioner for extension of time to furnish the reply to the 2nd show-cause. Thereafter vide the impugned order dated 15.09.2010 as contained in Memo No. 2518/M, Ranchi, the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 3) passed the order imposing punishment of reduction of grade pay from Rs. 6600/- to 4800/- on initial basic pay scale of Rs.9300/- from basic pay scale of Rs.24,192/- thereby causing loss of basic pay of Rs.14,892/- per month to the petitioner. In the said order, it is also indicated that payment regarding subsistence allowance would be made only after disposal of the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 14 of 2009. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, repelling the contentions made in the writ application. It has been inter alia, submitted in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand on 22.09.2005 after cadre bifurcation as Mines Inspector and was posted on the post of In-charge Assistant Mining Officer vide Notification no. 2833/M Ranchi, dated 30.12.2005 and joined at District Mining Office Bokaro on 04.01.2006. The petitioner after joining on the post of Assistant Mining Officer Bokaro drew his Salary in the pay scale of 10000-15200, which was contrary to the State Policy and thus was served a notice vide letter no. 2833/M Ranchi, dated 30.12.2005 and joined at District Mining Office Bokaro on 04.01.2006. The petitioner after joining on the post of Assistant Mining Officer Bokaro drew his Salary in the pay scale of 10000-15200, which was contrary to the State Policy and thus was served a notice vide letter no. 1488/M dated 06.12.2008 to stop drawing the above salary and refund the excess amount but the petitioner continued receiving the Salary on higher Scale as evident from the xerox copy of last pay certificate (Annexure-A) in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs.6600/- and thus violated the departmental order. On 21.07.2009, the petitioner was apprehended from District Mining Office Bokaro by the vigilance team on complaint and was caught red handed and remanded to judicial custody under Sections 7/13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was released on bail on 11.11.2009 and was placed under suspension vide office order no. Kha.Ni.Stha.66/09-1173/M dated 21.08.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioner submitted his joining at District Mining Office, Bokaro on 12.11.2009 and subsequent to the office order dated 01.12.2009, was asked to join at Head Quarter and where he joined on 07.01.2010. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2009 and memo of charges was served upon him and thereafter, final inquiry report was received in the department on 03.03.2010 and was examined and thereafter, second show cause was served vide order dated 25.06.2010 for submission of reply within 10 days, but the petitioner deliberately evaded to file the reply on one pretext or the other and thus final punishment was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2010 on the ground of misconduct under Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976 for accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant Shri Dev Narayan Prasad and thus the petitioner was demoted to the lowest pay in the same pay band with initial grade pay of Rs.4800/- and released from suspension and the period of suspension was directed to be considered as period of duty. The petitioner has been paid Rs.2,73,373/- vide treasury bill no. 27/2010-11, by the District Mining Office Bokaro towards subsistence allowance of his suspension period and now being adjusted against the excess payment taken by the petitioner ignoring sanctioned pay scale and ACP benefits attached to his post. The petitioner has been paid Rs.2,73,373/- vide treasury bill no. 27/2010-11, by the District Mining Office Bokaro towards subsistence allowance of his suspension period and now being adjusted against the excess payment taken by the petitioner ignoring sanctioned pay scale and ACP benefits attached to his post. No sooner the same is verified the balance if any shall be paid/excess recovered to/from the petitioner after regularization of the period in which he has drawn excess payment. The petitioner has also agitated the similar issue of recall of ACP benefits given to the petitioner by the erstwhile State of Bihar in W.P. (S) No. 2289 of 2009, wherein, the State of Jharkhand has taken the stand to follow the Resolution no. 3594 dated 18.12.2007 of the Finance Department, Jharkhand Posts/group of posts which do not have recruitment and promotion rules or where promotional (Pad Sopan) levels have not been defined in the instant rules, even though some fraction of posts in State Service/Cadre may be filled form them, will not have posts in State Service/Cadre as “Pad Sopen” as promotional tiers for the purposes of ACP. The orders in the said matter are awaited. The petitioner has rightly been placed in the same pay band of Rs.9300-34800/- on the highest grade pay, Rs.4800/- admissible and attached to his pay band. On account of punishment he has been reverted to the initial pay in the same pay Band-II and scale of Rs.;9300-34800/- with attached admissible grade pay. 5. Heard Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, learned J.C. to S.C.-V for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted even otherwise, the entire departmental proceeding and punishment pursuant thereto imposed upon the petitioner is vitiated on account of the fact that there is no legal evidence, upon the basis of which the finding of guilt of the petitioner could have been arrived at. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire finding and material available on record are related to the investigation done by the vigilance/police and the statement recorded by the police or the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investigation cannot said to be legal evidence, which can be used against any person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire finding and material available on record are related to the investigation done by the vigilance/police and the statement recorded by the police or the charge-sheet submitted by the police after investigation cannot said to be legal evidence, which can be used against any person. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even otherwise, the statements recorded by the police and the Charge-sheet submitted cannot be used against the petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to cross-examine the maker or the person, who has been examined by the police and in absence of an opportunity of cross-examine the evidence cannot be used against any person and this is not only a rule of evidence, but also a cardinal principle of natural justice. It is equally a settled law that though the provisions of evidence can not stricto-senso apply for departmental proceeding, but the basic principle of natural justice applies to departmental proceeding and as such the entire departmental proceeding and the finding of the departmental proceeding by the departmental authority pursuant thereto impinges the principles of natural justice and consequently liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has served the respondents for 33 years and had an unblemished service record, except the instant proceeding and the petitioner has remaining service of one year and the petitioner has also received three letters of recommendations till date from the respondents. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others-versus-Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , wherein, in paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to, inter alia, hold 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 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. As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on 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.” 7. On the other hand, learned J.C. to S.C.-V for the respondent-State apart from justifying the impugned order of dismissal from service, has assiduously submitted that the petitioner has been given opportunity to file reply to the second show-cause. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having given my anxious consideration to the issues involved in the instant writ application, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable ground to warrant any interference in the impugned order of punishment due to the following factual and legal aspects : - (i) The petitioner after joining on the post of Assistant Mining Officer Bokaro drew his Salary in the pay scale of 10000-15200, which was contrary to the State Policy and thus was served a notice vide letter no. 1488/M dated 06.12.2008 to stop drawing the above salary and refund the excess amount but the petitioner continued receiving the Salary on higher Scale as evident from the xerox copy of last pay certificate (Annexure-A) in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs.6600/- and thus violated the departmental order. 1488/M dated 06.12.2008 to stop drawing the above salary and refund the excess amount but the petitioner continued receiving the Salary on higher Scale as evident from the xerox copy of last pay certificate (Annexure-A) in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 Grade Pay Rs.6600/- and thus violated the departmental order. (ii) Second show cause was served vide order dated 25.06.2010 for submission of reply within 10 days, but the petitioner deliberately evaded to file the reply on one pretext or the other and thus final punishment was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2010 on the ground of misconduct under Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976 for accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- by the complainant Shri Dev Narayan Prasad. There is absolutely no quarrel over the principles and proposition, as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank & Others-versus-Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) but the facts of the present case, does not fall under the aforesaid principles. Hence, the said decision is not applicable in the case in hand. (iii) In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.-versus-Sarvesh Berry reported in (2005) 10 SCC 471 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in cases of Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980, there would be no question of disclosure of defence in the departmental proceedings. The said decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court came to be considered by a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association-versus-Noida and others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 385 , where their Lordships have noticed and recorded the conceptual difference between a departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings as highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases. Thereafter, the law laid down in Capt. M. Paul Anthony (Supra) has also been discussed in paragraph 14. Almost in all the decisions the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that there is no straightjacket formula as to in which case the departmental proceedings are to be stayed. However, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association & Others (Supra), what ultimately has been held is quoted hereinbelow: - “16. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. However, in NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association & Others (Supra), what ultimately has been held is quoted hereinbelow: - “16. The standard of proof required in departmental proceedings is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge and even if there is an acquittal in the criminal proceedings the same does not bar departmental proceedings. That being so, the order of the State Government deciding not to continue the departmental proceedings is clearly untenable and is quashed. The departmental proceedings shall continue” (iv) Dealing with same issue, Hon’ble Apex Court in its recent decision in the case of Stanzen Toyotestsu India Private Limited-versus-Girish V. and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636 , at paragraph 16 of the judgment has been pleased to inter alia hold as under: - “16. Suffice it to say that while there is no legal bar to the holding of the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial simultaneously, stay of disciplinary proceedings may be an advisable course in cases where the criminal charge against the employee is grave and continuance of the disciplinary proceedings is likely to prejudice their defence before the criminal court. Gravity of the charge is, however, not by itself enough to determine the question unless the charge involves complicated question of law and fact. The court examining the question must also keep in mind that criminal trials get prolonged indefinitely especially where the number of accused arraigned for trial is large as is the case at hand and so are the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution. The Court, therefore, has to draw a balance between the need for a fair trial to the accused on the one hand and the competing demand for an expeditious conclusion of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings on the other. An early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings has itself been seen by this Court to be in the interest of the employees.” 9. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment dated 15.09.2010 as contained in Memo No. 2518/M, Ranchi issued by the Under Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 3), does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.