JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the captioned writ application, prayer has been made for quashing the notification dated 16.04.2007 pertaining to imposition of punishment of recovery of 50% of the pension of the petitioner and further prayer for quashing the entire departmental proceeding against the petitioner and for direction upon respondents to forthwith release all the retiral dues and for fixation of final and full pension. 2. The brief facts as emanated from the writ application is that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the department of Water Resources Department, State of Bihar in the year 1972. During course of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and 2 subsequently on the post of Superintending Engineer. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioner's services has been allocated to the State of Jharkhand and accordingly, he joined the State of Jharkhand in the Water Resources Department on 30.11.2000. While the petitioner was posted as Secretary Technical to the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation at Ranchi with an additional charge of Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Hazaribagh, District of Chatra, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Giridih and Dhanbad a check Dam in the name of Kodai Bandh Jharna Nala Irrigation Scheme located in Tishi Block of Giridih district was under construction and unfortunately the said Bandh was broken in the year, 2002. The petitioner was put under suspension on 06.07.2002 and thereafter, it was decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioners. Thereafter, in the departmental proceeding, inquiry officer and presenting officer was appointed. The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry on 03.10.2002. After lapse of one year, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 13.03.2004, to give reply against the proposed punishment. The petitioner submitted several representations for supply of the report of the design organization, which has been passed on the administrative approval of the estimate, but the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his representation dated 28.07.2004, ventilating his grievance for conclusion of the departmental proceeding and also for finalization or fixation of pension. The petitioner submitted several representations for supply of the report of the design organization, which has been passed on the administrative approval of the estimate, but the same was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted his representation dated 28.07.2004, ventilating his grievance for conclusion of the departmental proceeding and also for finalization or fixation of pension. In absence of the inquiry report and the relevant documents, the petitioner was not in a position to file reply to the second show cause and finally the punishment order dated 16.04.2007 has been passed imposing deduction of 50% from the pension under the provisions of Rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, vide Annexure-18 to the 3 writ application. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has been constrained to challenge the impugned order invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order of punishment dated 16.04.2007 has submitted with vehemence that the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner with effect from 06.07.2002 could not be culminated within two years till the date of superannuation i.e. 31.01.2004. The impugned order was passed on 16.04.2007 after inordinate delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the inquiry report was asked by the petitioner but the inquiry report with the signature of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the petitioner thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner was neither supplied with the inquiry report nor was provided with the document of technical sanction, which would have gone to the root of the charge but the same having not been supplied to the petitioner deprived the petitioner to file second show cause reply, therefore, there has been breach of principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules which envisages that before passing of the order, the Public Service Commission is to be consulted. In the instant case, the Public Service Commission having not been consulted the impugned order is liable to be set at naught. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules which envisages that before passing of the order, the Public Service Commission is to be consulted. In the instant case, the Public Service Commission having not been consulted the impugned order is liable to be set at naught. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer against whom the charges were also levelled, have been exonerated from infliction of any punishment and hence the petitioner is entitled to parity of treatment at par with co-delinquents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that illegality and discrimination committed by the disciplinary authority of imposing lesser punishment on one engineer namely Madan Mohan Malviya, against whom also there was proposal of the Secretary level to impose the punishment of withholding of five annual increments with cumulative effect, but subsequently the Hon'ble Chief Minister has differed with the said proposal and has given opinion for imposing punishment of dismissal from services but ultimately Shri Malviya has been imposed with the punishment of withholding of five increments with cumulative effect, meaning thereby the proposal given by the Secretary has been taken into account while imposing punishment upon the said Junior Engineer. But in the instant case, the authority has proposed to impose punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect but subsequently it was changed to 20% recovery from pension and again it has been changed and enhanced to withholding of 50% of pension. Thus, on the one hand in the case of Junior Engineer, the opinion/proposal of authorities have been taken into account, while in the case of the petitioner the opinion of the Chief Minister has been taken into account and order has been passed for withholding 50% of pension, which is highly discriminatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in case of other similarly situated delinquent officials, the then Chief Engineer, who was appointed as enquiry officer submitted inquiry report where findings has been recorded that none of the charges levelled against the officials have been proved and the officials namely Shri Abdul Queum, Assitant Engineer, Shri Ravibhushan, Assistant Engineer, Shri Binod Shrivastava, Executive Engineer, Shri Anil Kumar Singh, Assistant Engineer and Shri Mahadeo Kumhar, Assitant Engineer have been exonerated from the charges. The same 5 has been brought in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 22.07.2010. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition has been filed. In the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar on 15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand came into existence and for a newly created State, the project of construction of check Dam in the name of Kodai Bandh Jharna Nala under Medium Irrigation Scheme at Tishi Block of Giridih District was matter of pride to special scheme in the year 2000-01. During construction of the project in question, the check dam caused severe damage in 2002 itself. A flying squad team was constituted to find out the reasons for such damage in such a very short span of time. The said team pointed out the defects i.e. construction defects, defects in completion of earth work and defect in design work and at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer of the Giridih Circle and Technical Secretary to the Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation). Therefore, the irresponsibility, irregularity and negligence of the petitioner in discharging his duties in the design and drawing and supervision of the project in question, could not be ruled out. A proper departmental proceeding as per the due procedure was conducted and the petitioner has been awarded with the impugned punishment of deduction of 50% of his pension. It has further been submitted in the counter-affidavit that from the memo of charges as contained in 'PRAPTRA K', five charges against the petitioner, which was neither vague nor unclear and the departmental proceeding has been conducted properly and legally and the petitioner was offered reasonable opportunity of hearing. Rule of natural justice is not violated and the findings of the disciplinary authority is neither perverse nor baseless and hence the punishment order is within the permissible arena of law and within the scope of enquiry. 5. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C to A.A.G for the State submitted that since the petitioner was Secretary, Technical to the Chief Engineer, so Chief Engineer could not have become enquiry officer of the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner regarding appointment of enquiry officer is not justified. 5. Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned J.C to A.A.G for the State submitted that since the petitioner was Secretary, Technical to the Chief Engineer, so Chief Engineer could not have become enquiry officer of the petitioner. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner regarding appointment of enquiry officer is not justified. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner was allowed to see the documents therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner, no infirmity can be attributed in the departmental proceeding. 6. Mr. S. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 during course of hearing has submitted that there has been violation of Rule 43 B of the Jharkhand Pension Rules since no notice on the proposed punishment has been issued. In this respect, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in (1999) 3 SCC 666 in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. And Others. 7. After giving anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and on perusal of the relevant records, the notification dated 16.04.2007 pertaining to imposition of punishment of recovery of 50% pension of the petitioner, is assailable on the following grounds:- (I) In the instant case, the petitioner retired from services on attaining the age of Superannuation on 31.01.2004. Prior to his retirement, departmental proceeding was initiated on 06.07.2002 and though inquiry was conducted but there was inordinate delay in the submissions of inquiry report, even after submissions of the inquiry report, no final order was passed vide order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure-18) and the punishment order has been passed purportedly under Rule 43 B of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Prior to his retirement, departmental proceeding was initiated on 06.07.2002 and though inquiry was conducted but there was inordinate delay in the submissions of inquiry report, even after submissions of the inquiry report, no final order was passed vide order dated 16.04.2007 (Annexure-18) and the punishment order has been passed purportedly under Rule 43 B of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. (II) For better appreciation, it would be apposite to refer Rule 43 B of the Jharkhand Pension Rules reads as under:- “Rule 43(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 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 proceeding 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. The proviso to Rule 43(b) reads as under:- Provided that- (I). Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment. (II). Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. (III). Shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. (IV). 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. (V). 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 The Bihar Public Service Commission, shall be consulted before final orders are passed. On perusal of the aforesaid rules, the concurrence of the Public Service Commission is a condition precedent, before passing the final order in a disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the Government servant. Admittedly, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission was neither consulted nor the opinion of the Commission was sought for, prior to issuance of the impugned notification vide Annexure-18. On perusal of the aforesaid rules, the concurrence of the Public Service Commission is a condition precedent, before passing the final order in a disciplinary proceeding after retirement of the Government servant. Admittedly, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission was neither consulted nor the opinion of the Commission was sought for, prior to issuance of the impugned notification vide Annexure-18. Therefore, there has been infraction of statutory provisions of Sub-rule 3 to proviso 2 Rule 43(B) of the Bihar Pension Rule, which renders of the impugned notifications invalid and non 8 sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, the impugned notification vide Annexure-18, being not legally sustainable, is liable to be set aside. (III) From the bare reading of the provisions as contained in Rule 43 A and B, it would be manifestly clear that the right of Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently and specified period as provided under the said Rule before invoking the said provision, the Government must come to a definite finding at to the pecuniary loss caused by the delinquent to the Government Exchequer or the Government Servant has committed grave misconduct. The charge should be specific also and the findings must be pin-pointed to the amount of loss caused to the Government due to the commissions and omissions by the delinquent Government Servants. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 43(B) of the Pension Rule withholding or withdrawing the pension can be resorted to only by complying with the conditions prescribed therein. In the case in hand, no definite finding has been given by the inquiry officer regarding the quantified loss caused to the Government. Therefore, in absence thereof, the impugned notification cannot be sustained. (IV) In the departmental proceeding, officials along with other delinquents were proceeded departmentally due to faulty construction of Kodai Bandh Dam scheme in Tishi Block of Giridih District. At the relevant time, the petitioner was the Superintending Engineer. Although, Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineers were proceeded but there has been disparity in the award of punishment. The petitioner has been inflicted with recovery of the 50% pension, whereas Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer have been exonerated from the charges. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case on the ground of doctrine of parity so far as award of punishment is concerned along with the co-delinquent. The petitioner has been inflicted with recovery of the 50% pension, whereas Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer have been exonerated from the charges. Therefore, the petitioner has made out a case on the ground of doctrine of parity so far as award of punishment is concerned along with the co-delinquent. View taken by this Court gets fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , in particular paragraph 9, which is quoted herein below: “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasoning, factual and legal aspects, I am of the considered view that the impugned order contained in Annexure-18 is not legally sustainable being violative of mandatory provisions of the Rules and in breach of principle of natural justice and doctrine of parity. Therefore, the impugned notification vide Annexure-18 is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the respondents to take a decision in terms of Rule 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules on the quantum of punishment and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and a decision in this respect, which shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of copy this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.