JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.04.2015 issued by the respondent no.4 pertaining to dismissal from services and for direction to the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including full back wages. 2. The factual matrix, as has been delineated in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner joined service in the year 1988 as Junior Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the petitioner was allotted Jharkhand cadre and was posted as Junior Engineer under the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand. In the year 2006 the petitioner was put on deputation under the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand at the Rural Works Special Division, Potka Block, Jamshedpur. Thereafter the petitioner was deputed to Bahragora Block vide memo dated 09.01.2009. During his continuance at the deputed place of posting, a First Information Report was lodged on 23.08.2009 at the instance of the Block Development Officer, Potka, district East Singhbhum against 11 persons including the present petitioner on the allegation that no work was done under the projects and fabricated measurements were entered in the measurement books, based on which funds have been released, which resulted in defalcation of the Government money under 12 projects in Potka under N.R.E.G.A scheme. On the basis of the said F.I.R., a joint enquiry report dated 11.08.2009 was prepared under the Block Development Officer, Potka under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the gist of the charge was that no work was done under the projects and fabricated measurements have been entered in the measurement books, based on which funds have been released. In the departmental proceeding the inquiry officer submitted the report. In the inquiry report, Charge Nos.1, 2, 4, 10 and 12 have been proved. Charge Nos.3, 5 and 7 are marginally proved and Charge nos.6, 8, 9 and 11 are not proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice inter alia taking the plea of pendency of criminal proceeding on the same set of charges. Charge Nos.3, 5 and 7 are marginally proved and Charge nos.6, 8, 9 and 11 are not proved. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his reply to the second show cause notice inter alia taking the plea of pendency of criminal proceeding on the same set of charges. Surprisingly, after lapse of two years another show cause was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 19.12.2014. Again, the petitioner submitted his second show cause reply on 21.01.2015. Thereafter, punishment order of dismissal from services was passed against the petitioner vide memo dated 08.04.2015 issued by the Engineer in Chief-I, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand vide Annexure-11 to the writ application. It has been submitted in the writ application that on perusal of the report dated 21.12.2009 it is evident that the value of total loss under 12 projects in question is Rs.23,65,021/-which is more than the amount which has been paid, amounting thereby that there is no question of defalcation or work not being done and the said report dated 21.12.2009 has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ application. It is also submitted that the report which was prepared on 11.08.2011 by the Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Special Division, Jamshedpur, indicates that the value of total works executed under 12 projects in question is Rs.25,39,269/-which is more than the amount which has been paid, which implies that no question of defalcation or work not being done, copy of the report dated 11.08.2011 is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ application. It is also submitted that the B.D.O., Potka vide letter dated 06.01.2011 wrote to the Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur admitting that the work has been done for Rs.24,33,174/-which is more than the amount has been paid and requested to absolve the petitioner from the charges, thereby clearly implying that there is no question of fabricating measurement by the petitioner and the letter has been annexed as Annexurre-14 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from services, left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. 3. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been inter alia stated that while the petitioner was deputed to Bahragora Block vide memo dated 09.01.2009, a First Information Report was lodged on 23.08.2009 at the instance of the Block Development Officer, Potka against 11 persons including the present petitioner inter alia alleging that no work was done under the projects and fabricated measurements were entered in the measurement books, based on which funds have been released and, thus, the accused persons have defalcated Government money under N.R.E.G.A Scheme. The F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of the joint enquiry report dated 11.08.2009 prepared under the Block Development Officer, Potka. It has further been submitted that in the charges the evidence of proving the said charge was (i) the joint enquiry report dated 11.08.2009 prepared under the Block Development Officer, Potka and (ii) the FIR itself, thereby making it clear that the departmental proceeding under the memo of charge was initiated for the very same set of events, and the occurrence for which the criminal case was lodged even the very basis and evidence for both being the same. It has been submitted that after scrutinizing all the evidences against the petitioner, dismissal order was passed and that too on the recommendation of Rural Development Department (RDD), therefore, there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in the departmental proceeding. 4. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and 5. It has been submitted that the Department of Rural Development, Government of Jharkhand sent the records with recommendation to Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand for institution of major punishment of dismissal on 16.10.2014. Thereafter, the Water Resources Department along with records of departmental proceeding felt to issue a show cause notice as per the law of natural justice to the petitioner, which was issued vide memo dated 19.12.2014 vide Annexure-9 of the writ application. The petitioner submitted his reply as per Annexure-10, which was again carefully examined at departmental level. The defence placed by the petitioner in response to 2nd show cause notice was found baseless. The petitioner submitted his reply as per Annexure-10, which was again carefully examined at departmental level. The defence placed by the petitioner in response to 2nd show cause notice was found baseless. It was found that petitioner prima facie as well as finally after legally conducted departmental proceeding, is guilty of fraudulent and misappropriation of Government Exchequer and hence, got approval of proposal of dismissal from the Hon’ble Minister In-charge, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, which has been notified as memo in question placed at Annexure-11 of the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has also been submitted that the respondents have followed the directive under Rule 166 Appendix ‘J’ of Bihar Board’s Misc. Rule-1958, the circular dated 23.08.1963 as contained in memo no.10158 issued by the Government of Bihar, Appointment Department, clearly directs to follow the procedure in dealing with the Government servants involved in criminal misconduct, which is as follows:- “(7) If the Criminal Court acquits the accused Government Servant who has earlier been punished in Departmental Proceeding, the appointing authority must immediately review the case. Two considerations will be relevant. First Departmental and legal proceedings may not have covered the same ground, so that the Court’s finding may leave untouched the decisions arrived at in the Departmental Proceedings. Second, while the Court may hold that there was no offence, the appointing authority may decide that the accused Government servant was guilty of Departmental Misdemeanor and has not behaved in a manner expected of his as a government servant. In such circumstances a Government Servant held not guilty by the Court may still be dismissed from service.” 5. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Vineet Prakash, J.C. to S.C (L & C), appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without any cogent reasons given by the disciplinary authority for differing with the findings of the inquiry officer. Out of the 12 charges against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has opined 5 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be marginally proved and 4 charges to be not proved, thus clearly indicating that the enquiry officer also not held the petitioner fully guilty of the charges levelled against him. Out of the 12 charges against the petitioner, the inquiry officer has opined 5 charges to be proved, 3 charges to be marginally proved and 4 charges to be not proved, thus clearly indicating that the enquiry officer also not held the petitioner fully guilty of the charges levelled against him. Without even assigning reasons for differing with the findings of the inquiry officer, punishment has been imposed on the petitioner on the erroneous premise that all charges have been proved against the petitioner by not even giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make representation. Therefore, the punishment order is non-reasoned and non-speaking order, which is in violation of canons of service jurisprudence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner earlier and the inquiry officer has gone beyond the evidence and the report of the inquiry officer is contrary to the report to the preliminary inquiry, therefore, the inquiry has been conducted in a very perfunctory manner based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding has been vitiated by inordinate delay, which has caused gross prejudice to the petitioner. In the departmental proceeding memo of charge was issued in July, 2011 and enquiry report was submitted in April, 2012, but without assigning any reasons, departmental proceeding was prolonged for around 4 years and the dismissal order was passed only in April 2015 and the unexplained delay caused gross prejudice to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that when the departmental and criminal proceeding have been initiated on the self same set of facts, the departmental proceeding ought to have been stayed till the outcome of the criminal case as the petitioner’s defence would be seriously prejudiced. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.). 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the punishment order is gross disproportionate and irrational, which is not commensurate to the gravity of misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect has referred to the decisions reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra) (Para-19) and (2006) 5 SCC 88 (M V Bijlani vs. Union of India) (para 16). 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect has referred to the decisions reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra) (Para-19) and (2006) 5 SCC 88 (M V Bijlani vs. Union of India) (para 16). 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has assiduously submitted that in the departmental proceeding there has been no procedural irregularity nor there has been any non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, there has been sufficient evidence of embezzlement of Government money by the petitioner for showing forged and fabricated measurements. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the petitioner has been able to demonstrate legally tenable grounds for interference, due to the following facts: (I) In the case in hand, while the petitioner was on deputation to Bahragora Block, an F.I.R. was lodged on 23.08.2009 at the instance of B.D.O., Potka, district East Singhbhum pertaining to allegation of work not being done and forged and fabricated measurements were entered into the measurement books, basing on which the funds have been released which resulted in defalcation of Government money under 12 projects in Potka under NREGA Scheme. In the criminal case, the petitioner was taken into custody and after being released from the custody, the petitioner’s suspension order was revoked and basing on the self same criminal case a departmental proceeding was initiated. The inquiry officer submitted report in the departmental proceeding and as per the findings of the inquiry officer, some charges have been proved, some have been marginally proved and some have not been proved. Second show cause notice dated 03.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply to the same on 24.09.2012 differing with the second show cause report. Thereafter, for couple of years no action has been taken, but, after lapse of more than two years another show cause notice was issued vide memo dated 19.12.2014. In pursuance to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 21.01.2015 and vide order dated 08.04.2015 a completely non reasoned, non speaking order of dismissal has been passed. The entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in a perfunctory manner. In pursuance to the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 21.01.2015 and vide order dated 08.04.2015 a completely non reasoned, non speaking order of dismissal has been passed. The entire departmental proceeding has been conducted in a perfunctory manner. The letter dated 06.01.2011 of the B.D.O., Potka to the Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum is indicative of the fact that the work has been done more than the amount which have been paid and the same fact has also been corroborated by the NREGA Commissioner by letter dated 25.06.2011. Another important fact which cannot be lost sight of is that the departmental proceeding has been carried out by the Rural Development Department, Government of Jharkhand but the punishment order has been passed by the Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, thereby implying that the department which conducted the departmental proceedings did not pass the punishment order, rather another department which was not a privy to the departmental proceeding has passed the punishment order. (II) Although the memo of charge was issued in July 2011 and the inquiry report was submitted in April, 2012, but without assigning any reasons, the departmental proceedings were prolonged for around 4 years and dismissal order was passed only in April 2015. This unexplained delay caused grave prejudice to the petitioner which vitiated the entire proceeding. Moreover, the charge levelled against the petitioner appears to be vague, confusing, and indefinite. Apart from that, the punishment order imposed to the petitioner appears to be grossly disproportionate and irrational and the charges and the finding is based on surmises and conjectures appears to be agonizingly harsh and shockingly disproportionate. 11. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services dated 08.04.2015 issued by respondent no.4 being unsupportable by cogent reasons, warrants interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the quantum of punishment strictly, in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands, disposed of.