JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of penalty order dated 19.06.2014 by which he has suffered punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 2. Heard. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Amin on 30.08.1977. On the charge of irregularity and misappropriation of government fund, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 26.06.2008. He superannuated from service on 30.06.2011. When his post-retiral benefits were not paid to him he came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.940 of 2012 which was disposed of by an order dated 30.03.2012 with a direction to the Deputy-Commissioner, Jamtara to take appropriate decision on payment of post-retiral dues to the petitioner. Order dated 09.04.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.3053 of 2013 records that pending departmental proceeding post-retiral benefits payable to the petitioner could not have been withheld. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking undue advantage of the direction issued by this Court, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner has been concluded in haste, after 3 years of his superannuation from service and without any formal order for continuing the departmental proceeding against the petitioner after his superannuation from service. 5. Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, the learned State counsel supports the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 contending that finding sufficient evidence in support of the charge framed against the petitioner, penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect has rightly been inflicted upon the petitioner. 6. The materials brought on record would disclose that the petitioner was not served a copy of the enquiry report. Obviously, no opportunity was offered to him to respond to the findings recorded by the enquiring officer. The impugned order dated 19.06.2014 has been passed holding that “prima-facie” both the charges have been found proved. This was a serious error in the decision-making process. On conclusion of the enquiry, for recording a finding on the charges framed against a delinquent employee, the departmental authorities are required to record conclusive finding and not a prima-facie finding. The order of penalty passed in a departmental proceeding entails serious consequence to the delinquent employee and that is the reason the government employees are protected under the extant rules framed by the employer. It is also a matter of record that there is no order for continuing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The order of penalty passed in a departmental proceeding entails serious consequence to the delinquent employee and that is the reason the government employees are protected under the extant rules framed by the employer. It is also a matter of record that there is no order for continuing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner. Order dated 09.04.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.3053 of 2013 does not grant liberty to the respondent- Deputy-Commissioner to continue the departmental proceeding against the petitioner after his superannuation from service, rather the positive direction issued by this Court was to take a decision on payment of post-retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. 7. In the above facts, the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 renders unsustainable and accordingly, it is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.