JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Seema Pandey appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of punishment in the nature of recovery of money @ 2% from the pension of the petitioner who has already retired from service. The reason accorded for imposing this punishment is that the proposed punishment in the show-cause notice was to the effect as to why entry of sensor and permanent stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect may not be awarded. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer with the respondent, was served with a charge sheet with two articles of charges: one with regard to his work and conduct; and second a consequential loss to the department, while posted at Vidyut Nagariya Vitran Khand, Ghaziabad in respect of the distribution and supply of electricity in Green Park Colony. In the inquiry report dated 5.12.2006, which was conducted by the enquiry committee, the petitioner was exonerated of all the two charges. However, the Executive Engineer disagreed with the findings of the inquiry report and consequently issued a show-cause notice on 8.1.2008 and it has come in the said notice that electricity supply costing Rs. 9,27,800/- were made wholly illegally by committing gross illegality by the delinquent employee. The petitioner submitted his reply on 5.2.2008 and the point No. 5 of the reply did contain about the fact that the petitioner was never given any direction to carry out any task with regard to the scheme GPT (AAB), API, NICC and consequently he did not carry out any such charge and could not be held guilty for the same. The Under Secretary/ disciplinary authority forwarded this reply particularly para (v) to the Executive Engineer for verification vide letter dated 4.3.2009 and the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 31.3.2009 reported to the disciplinary authority that the reply of the petitioner (V) as contained in his reply to the show-cause notice was correct. The petitioner had already retired in the meanwhile on 31.12.2008. The petitioner had already retired in the meanwhile on 31.12.2008. However, another show-cause notice was issued to him on 21.10.2009 to the effect as to why penalty of recovery of 2% of money from the pension may not be ordered in place of the earlier proposed punishment of entry of sensor and permanent stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply to the second show-cause notice dated 21.10.2009 that he has already submitted detailed reply and the necessary verification has already been got done at the end of disciplinary authority from the Executive Engineer and in case if any further verification of the documents was required that could have been done at the same time by the authority concerned. 4. After the reply was submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 23.4.2010 imposing penalty in the nature of recovery @ 2% from the pension of the petitioner permanently. From the perusal of impugned order it is clearly depicted that the disciplinary authority has acted in very casual manner as inspite of first inquiry report in which the petitioner was exonerated of the two charges yet the disciplinary authority proceeded to issue a show-cause notice making a statement to the effect that it disagreed with the findings of the inquiry committee. The first show-cause notice dated 8.1.2008 which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition states in the following manner: ^^mi;qZDr ds lanHkZ esa eq>s dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd dkjiksjs'ku ds mDr i= la[;k 3784&f'kŒtkWŒ&05lh@ikdkfy@06&7¼3½05lh@2000 fnukad 05-12-2006 ds vuqØe esa tkap lfefr dh tkap vk[;k ls vlger gksrs gq, dkjiksjs'ku Lrj ij izfØ;k ds ijh{k.kksijkUr vkids fo:) fuEufyf[kr vkjksi fl) ik;s x;s gSaA ¼1½ vfHkys[kkuqlkj lacaf/kr dkyksfu;ksa ds Hkkj fuEufyf[kr frfFk;ksa dks LohÑr gq;s Fks %& Øekad dkyksuh ds uke LohÑfr dh frfFk 1- ,uŒvkbZŒlhŒlhŒ 10-02-94 2- thŒihŒVhŒ ¼,Œ½ 01-10-96 3- thŒihŒVhŒ ¼chŒ½ 01-10-96 4- ,ŒihŒvkbZŒ 05-10-96 5- lwjt 10-02-96 mDr frfFk;ksa dh Hkkj Lohd`fr ds ckn Hkh vkids }kjk vkadyu rS;kj u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k dEiuh dks fu;e o 'krsZ ugha Hksth tk ldh ijUrq thŒihŒVhŒ ¼chŒ½ rFkk ,ŒihŒvkbZŒ dks NksM+dj 'ks"k rhuksa ;kstukvksa esa fuekZ.k us fo|qr la;kstu voeqDr dj fn;kA** 5. From the above statement of fact, which has come in the show-cause notice, it only records that it disagreed with the inquiry report. From the above statement of fact, which has come in the show-cause notice, it only records that it disagreed with the inquiry report. It is well settled law that while disciplinary authority dis-agrees with inquiry report and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer it shall record its own finding of fact considering the material available on record and reply of the delinquent employee and shall discuss such intrinsic material which has been overlooked by the inquiry officer. There is no such finding to that effect and therefore, the very first show-cause notice whereby the Inquiry Officer disagreed with the findings of the inquiry report was per se illegal. However, even after reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner/ delinquent employee in his letter dated 5.2.2008, the disciplinary authority proceeded to re-inquire / verify the factum of statement that contained in para (V) of the letter of reply of the petitioner dated 5.2.2008 categorical finding has come on record to the verification report submitted by the Executive Officer that the point No. (V) as was stated by the delinquent employee was found to be correct but that fact stood verified. It is very surprising that even after verification for second time done by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority again disagreed with the same and issued show-cause notice on 12.10.2005 for the second time. The second show-cause notice is reproduced hereunder: ^^Jh tsMŒ,Œ [kku] voj vfHk;Urk ¼lsokfuo`Rr½ vkj&14@124&jktuxj] xkft;kcknA dkjiksjs'ku ds i= la[;k&613&f'ktka&05lh@ikdkfy@09&7¼3½ 05lh@2000 fnukad 04-03-2009 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djsaA vki }kjk vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa dh izekf.kr izfr;ka miyC/k ugha djkus ij izdj.k dk miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd fnukad 31-12-2008 dks vki lsokfuo`Rr gks x;s gSaA vr% iwoZ izLrkfor ^^fuUnk izfof"V^^ rFkk lap;h izHkko ls ,d okf"kZd osru o`f) ij jksd^^ ds n.M lafgrk ij vki ij fl) ik;s x;s vkjksiksa gsrq l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk ^^isa'ku ls nks izfr'kr dh dVkSrh dk n.M izLrkfor gSA vr% vkils vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd mijksDr izLrkfor n.M ds lEcU/k esa vki viuk vH;kosnu ;fn nsuk pkgsa rks nks lIrkg ds vUnj lk{;ksa dh lEcfU/kr [k.M@bdkbZ ls izekf.kr izfr;ksa lfgr fu/kkZfjr le; ds vUnj vH;kosnu u izkIr gksus ij ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA** 6. I find that even this show-cause notice does not state as to in what manner, the disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the verification report submitted by the Executive Officer. I find that even this show-cause notice does not state as to in what manner, the disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the verification report submitted by the Executive Officer. Thus, twice inquiry was got conducted by the disciplinary authority and in both the inquiry reports; in one, full fledged inquiry and in other summary inquiry, it has come that the reply submitted by the petitioner was satisfactory and the charges could not be brought home by the inquiry officer or the officer concerned, who had submitted its verification report. No material was referred to by the disciplinary authority to demonstrate its prima facie satisfaction of coming to hold that charges were proved as against the findings of enquiry officer. I am of the opinion while issuing the second show-cause notice the disciplinary authority must have disclosed its prima facie view for taking stand different from the findings of enquiry report so as to enable the delinquent employee to give proper reply. Nevertheless, the impugned order has been passed for making permanent recovery from the pension of the petitioner merely on the ground that proposed punishment in show-cause notice could not be inflicted upon the petitioner as he had already retired on 31.12.2008. The reply second time submitted by the petitioner has also not been appreciated by the disciplinary authority. I find in the present case that the disciplinary authority has completely overlooked the basic principles regarding imposition of penalty. The first enquiry being full fledged and the other was summary enquiry after the first show-cause notice and in both the enquiries, the reply of the petitioner having been found correct, there was no occasion for further show-cause. The authority of second show-cause though may be permissible in law at the end of disciplinary authority but then it must record after due consideration of the enquiry report reasons for disagreement. 7. Further while passing the final order, imposing penalty, the disciplinary authority is required to discuss reply and shall have to record as to why reply to show-cause was not satisfactory and there were evidence sufficiently enough to hold him guilty of the charges. In Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 the Supreme Court held that “adjudicating process essentially has to be in consonance with principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind.” 8. In Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14 the Supreme Court held that “adjudicating process essentially has to be in consonance with principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind.” 8. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Dayal Rai v. Jharkhand State Electricity Board and others, (2005) 3 SCC 501 held that even 5% cut out from the total amount of pension payable to the appellant was an irreparable loss and injury. Court in this case while dealing with a recovery due to overstay in official accommodation, had held: “If the pensioner’s benefit is cut at 5% out of the total amount of pension payable to the appellant, the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury since, after retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available to eke out a livelihood for the retired employees of the Government.” 9. In view of the above, it is now clear that if a 5% of deduction from the pension of an employee has a serious adverse civil consequence because the pension, gratuity and other retiral dues are only source of livelihood of retired employee and therefore, in the event of such recovery being proposed or being made, the disciplinary authority shall reasonably record specific findings of fact that the department has suffered such a loss which cannot be fulfilled except by making recovery and that delinquent employee has been chiefly responsible for such loss. In the event of any such finding not coming forth in order of imposing penalty, such an order cannot be sustained in law. 10. Service jurisprudence requires the basic virtue of bonafides in administrative decision making by a higher authority in respect of subordinates. What stems from word ‘bonafide’ are twins ‘just’ and ‘fair play’. Just and fair play in administrative decision making rule out all such arbitrariness which may question or otherwise render an action sans rational making it unsustainable. 11. There is no such vested right with the disciplinary authority to continue with the proceedings with a show-cause notice one after another, until the delinquent employee is held guilty. The decision must be rational one. Reasonableness is the backbone of all such disciplinary proceedings prescribed under the rules governing service conditions. 11. There is no such vested right with the disciplinary authority to continue with the proceedings with a show-cause notice one after another, until the delinquent employee is held guilty. The decision must be rational one. Reasonableness is the backbone of all such disciplinary proceedings prescribed under the rules governing service conditions. If there is no evidence available to prove articles of charge, there is no reason to continue with the disciplinary enquiry. The proceedings have to conclusively arrive its logical end at some point of time. After full fledged enquiry is concluded with exoneration of the delinquent employee unless and until a very intrinsic material is found to have escaped the scanning eyes of the enquiry officer and which, if considered, would make the findings perverse, and of course, the disciplinary authority discusses the same in its show-cause, there is no point to drag on with the enquiry proceedings further and further. 12. In the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority has completely failed to record any cogent and convincing findings to justify its disagreement with the inquiry report. The matter could have been relegated to the alternative remedy of appeal or to the disciplinary authority to decide afresh in the event of any evidence has been brought on record by the respondents or in the event of any evidence being discussed by the disciplinary authority and the Court finds that such an evidence is required to be looked into and finding has to be returned thereon. In the instant case there is no evidence which can be said to be looked into by holding any fresh assessment at the end of the disciplinary authority. It is a case of no evidence. The order impugned dated 23.4.2010 (Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition) is absolutely misplaced, deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 13. Writ petition is allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.