ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the orders dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure-6) and 23.10.2017 (Annexure-8), issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, whereby the grant of MACP w.e.f. 02.03.2014, as said to be irregular, has been withdrawn and order of recovery of the differential amount from the salary of petitioner in 12 installments has been passed. 3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the petitioner joined as a Clerk in the Primary Teachers’ Education College, Rahela, Palamau on 02.03.1994 in the pay-scale of Rs.1200-30-1800/-. Subsequently, he was transferred to different places and finally, from April, 2016 to till date, the petitioner is posted at Sub-divisional Office, Palamau-cum-Garhwa-cum-Latehar. When the petitioner was posted from June, 2012 to March, 2016, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on 22.01.2013 by respondent No. 4 on the ground that petitioner failed to show his ability in making fast disposal with regard to payment of GPF of one Prabhu Ram. A summary proceeding was drawn against the petitioner and finally on 18.03.2013, petitioner was awarded with “Censure” and two increments in salary without cumulative effect was withheld. It is the further case of the petitioner that his services were also confirmed vide order dated 26.05.2014 w.e.f. 02.03.1997. On 29.05.2014, the petitioner was granted benefits of 1st ACP w.e.f. 02.03.2006 and further was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 02.03.2014. Surprisingly, on 06.09.2017 without seeking any explanation or show-cause from the petitioner, an order was passed by the respondent No. 4 withdrawing the benefits of 2nd MACP given to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.2014, said to be irregular and it was also decided to recover the difference of amount. In response to the said recovery order, the petitioner preferred representation dated 20.09.2017, mentioning therein that the MACP granted to the petitioner was fully justified and the order of recovery is not in consonance with the Rules and even the effect of Censure is only for a year and as such, the order should be reconsidered as the petitioner was rightly given the benefits of 2nd MACP. However, when the respondents did not pay any heed to the said representation, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court by preferring the instant writ petition for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the petitioner was rightly given the benefits of 2nd MACP as he was entitled for the same. Learned senior counsel further argued that the validity of censure is for one year from the date from which it was imposed. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the same will not come in the way of granting the benefits of MACP. Learned counsel places reliance on the reported judgment of this Hon’ble Court in case of Sada Shiv Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., [ 2015 (2) JLJR 433 ] and argues that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held that any order of punishment, the effect will be from the date of occurrence and not from the date of awarding the punishment. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench, the order of recovery is not at all tenable in the eyes of law, considering the said proposition of law decided by this Hon’ble Court. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Razaullah Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Ansari draws the attention of the Court towards para-15 of the counter-affidavit and argues that the grant of MACP was contrary to letter dated 29.07.1978, issued by the Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Department, which provides that in cases in which notices have been issued from the office of Lokayukta, promotion cannot be granted. In the instant case, a complaint made against the petitioner is pending before the Hon’ble Lokayukta and hence, rightly the order of recovery has been passed and grant of benefits of 2nd MACP has been resisted from given effect to. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The benefits of 2nd MACP was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.2014. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The benefits of 2nd MACP was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 02.03.2014. The facts which are mentioned in the counter-affidavit does not find place in the impugned order. Admittedly, as per the State Govt. Resolution, the life of censure is only for one year. Further, in view of law laid down by the Division Bench, which has been taken into consideration by the State of Jharkhand and while implementing the said legal proposition, what has been held by the Division Bench, it has been held by the State Govt. that effect of punishment has to be taken from the date of occurrence and not from the date of punishment. 7. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions, the impugned order is not tenable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside and hence, it is quashed. The respondents are relying on the circular of the State of Govt. Nothing has been mentioned whether this circular was ever adopted by the State of Jharkhand. What is not in the impugned order, cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 has held that what is not in the impugned order cannot be supplemented by way of counter-affidavit. The same view has been reiterated in case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 . 8. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions and law laid, the impugned order at Annexure-8 is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 4 is hereby directed not to give effect to orders dated 06.09.2017 (Annexure-6) and 23.10.2017 (Annexure-8). Needless to say, if already amount has been recovered, the same may be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 9. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.