JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing the order issued by the Respondent No. 3, dated 02.06.2008, pertaining to infliction of punishment of deduction of 4 per cent of pension amount from 100 per cent payable pension amount to the petitioner and for quashing of the letter dated 10.11.2008, issued by the respondent no. 4 informing the Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) that on the basis of the punishment granted to the petitioner for 4 per cent deduction in pension amount and for quashing of the letter dated 11.12.2008, issued by the Respondent no. 6 informing the Treasury Officer, Ranchi to report regarding excess amount paid to the petitioner towards pension. Further prayer has been made for direction to the respondents for payment of gratuity amount alongwith interest. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 1973 and in the year 1993, the petitioner was given regular promotion to the post of the Executive Engineer in Bihar Engineering Services, Class-I. The petitioner discharged his responsibilities with devotion and sincerity and thereafter vide Notification dated 10.07.2002, the petitioner was given promotion to the post of the next higher post of the Superintending Engineer. The petitioner retired from service on 30.10.2006 from the post of the Superintending Engineer on attaining the age of superannuation. While continuing as an Executive Engineer, the petitioner was served vide letter dated 19.12.2001 of the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to file show cause under Rule 55 “A” of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, for alleged omission and commission in the capacity of the Assistant Engineer in Subarnrekha Canal Subdivision, Lailum under Subarnrekha Canal Subdivision Haludbani, Jamshedpur related to occurrence as far back as for the period 1987-88. The petitioner filed reply to the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna stating, therein, that the so called charges levelled against him, has no basis and asked for certain relevant documents to enable him to file show cause. The petitioner filed reply to the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna stating, therein, that the so called charges levelled against him, has no basis and asked for certain relevant documents to enable him to file show cause. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner was again directed vide letter dated 13.11.2003 to file show cause under Rule 55 “A” of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the petitioner submitted his reply on 05.12.2003 denying the charges. The Government of Jharkhand vide Resolution dated 13.11.2004 decided to institute a proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 55 for the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner, while posted as an Assistant Engineer, Subarnrekha Canal Division, Haludbani, (Minor Distribution Division No. 5, Jamshedpur and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Respondent No. 3 on 22.08.2006 but the copy of the same was not served on the petitioner nor asked any show cause with regard to infliction of punishment, if any. After retirement from service, the petitioner has been paid retiral dues i.e. P.F., GIS, Leave Encashment etc. including 100 per cent pension amount. The Respondent No. 3 vide Memo dated-02.06.2008 without affording the opportunity of 2nd show cause to the petitioner and recording any reason for disagreement from the findings of the Enquiry Officer and without complying with the provisions of Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 informed the petitioner that the charges have been proved against him and it has been decided to inflict punishment of 4 per cent deduction in payable pension amount as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner submitted his representation to the Respondent No. 2 contending violations of the principles of natural justice and non-compliance of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 informed the Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) for deduction of excess amount paid to the petitioner in view of the punishment of 4 per cent deduction in pension amount and the respondent no. 6 also informed the Treasury Officer (Respondent No. 7) to report with regard to excess amount paid to the petitioner towards pension. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 informed the Accountant General (Respondent No. 5) for deduction of excess amount paid to the petitioner in view of the punishment of 4 per cent deduction in pension amount and the respondent no. 6 also informed the Treasury Officer (Respondent No. 7) to report with regard to excess amount paid to the petitioner towards pension. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner left with no other alternative, has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing, has submitted that the order dated 02.06.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 3, is apparently illegal since without affording any opportunity of second show cause and without complying the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry officer has submitted his report on 22.08.2006 but the petitioner was neither served with any enquiry report nor asked any show cause with regard to infliction of punishment. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry report, the charges have not been fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority while inflicting the punishment, has not recorded the reasons of disagreement, which has led to miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the impugned order of punishment of withholding of 4 per cent of pension, no time limit has been mentioned and the impugned order of punishment has been passed without quantification of the loss, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be struck down. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has referred to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.08.2016, by which the petitioner has brought on record the office order dated 17th April, 2012 issued by the Government of Bihar, whereby Government of Bihar has recalled the order of punishment contained in Office Order dated 02.02.2010, whereby, one Ram Tripti Maharaj, the then Junior Engineer, Swarnarekha Canal Division, Haludabni, Jamshedpur, now retired on the ground that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government against whom same and similar charges have been framed as that of the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-9 and 10 to the said supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is well-settled that for same and similar charges, selective punishment is not permissible as different treatments cannot be meted out. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be exonerated from the punishment inflicted against him, which is otherwise also bad in law for want of proper procedure, which has not been adhered to before infliction of punishment. During course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 , Punjab National Bank & Others-versus-Kunj Behari Misra. 5. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the impugned order has been issued after conducting departmental proceeding against the petitioner and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The copy of the enquiry report of flying squad and Technical Vigilance was served to the petitioner. This fact was accepted by the petitioner in paragraph 6.4 of his written statement dated 14.01.2005. It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated prior to his date of retirement and after retirement, the same is a continued proceeding under Rule 43 (B) of the Pension Rules. It has further been submitted that the impugned memo dated 10.11.2008 and 11.12.2008 has been issued in the light of the punishment awarded to the petitioner of 4 per cent deduction from his pension. It has further been submitted that the Accountant General has already been requested vide impugned memo dated 10.11.2008 to issue authority for payment of gratuity as evident from Annexure-D to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and has defended the impugned order of punishment. 6. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 has referred to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent-Accountant General and more particularly to paragraph 4, 5 and 7, wherein, it has been stated that initially sanction of 100 per cent provisional pension was accorded by the department vide letter dated 28.11.2006, which was received on 27.12.2007 and accordingly, authority for a provisional was issued vide P.P.O. Dated 02.02.2007. Later on, the Department vide its letter 10.11.2008 intimated that vide order dated 02.06.2008 punishment for recovery of 4 per cent pension from payable pension has been awarded to the petitioner and so all excess amount beyond 96 per cent must be recovered from gratuity. In pursuance to the aforesaid sanction petitioner's pension has been reduced from hundred per cent to 96 per cent and the revised pension authority has been issued under Authority letter dated 11.12.2008. It has further been submitted that consequent to the implementation of 06th pay commission report, the pay of the petitioner has been revised vide pay slip dated 19.05.2009 and therefore, his pension in the revised pay scale has also been fixed with effect from 01.11.2006. The revision of pension/family pension has already been authorized vide letter dated 12.06.2009. Simultaneously, authority of DCRG has been issued under letter dated 12.06.2009, wherein, the excess paid amount of CVP has been shown adjusted. Since the commutation of pension was determined on the basis of 100 per cent pension, which was reduced to 96 per cent as such, there was proportionate reduction in CVP resulted in excess payment which has been shown in the authority of DCRG dated 12.06.2009. 7. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the rivalry submissions and on perusal of the records,I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 02.06.2008 of punishment of deduction of withholding of 4 per cent of pension amount from 100 per cent payable pension amount to the petitioner vide Annexure-3 is not legally sustainable in view of the following facts reasons and judicial pronouncements : - (i) Undisputedly, before infliction of punishment vide order dated 02.06.2008 vide Annexure-3, no second show cause has been issued to the petitioner nor the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner, which has vitiated the proceedings, thereby rendering the impugned order of punishment vide Annexure-3 vulnerable to the judicial review. For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer to Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, which reads as under : - “(b)The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that - (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment; (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government; (ii) shall be in respect of an evident which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and at such place or places as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made; (b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed.” The consultation with the Jharkhand Public Service Commission was mandatory prior to infliction of punishment. In the instant case, no such concurrence of the JPSC prior to infliction of punishment was obtained. There has been breach of the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Pension Rules, 1950 which has rendered the impugned order nugatory and nullity in the eye of law. (ii) Another infirmity, which has materially vitiated the proceedings is that the disciplinary authority i.e. the Respondent No. 3, if he had reasons for disagreement to the findings of the enquiry report, the reasons of disagreement ought to have been recorded and the petitioner should have been supplied with the copy alongwith the reasons of disagreement, the same having not been done, there has been procedural irregularity for lack of natural justice. (iii) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others-versus-Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 , 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. 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.” 8. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order dated 02.06.2008, issued by the Respondent No. 3, the memo dated 10.11.2008, issued by the respondent no. 4 as well as the letter dated 11.12.2008, issued by the Respondent no. 6 warrant interference. Accordingly, the same are hereby quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.