ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order contained in Annexure 11, whereby the 100% pension of the petitioner has been stopped and the appellate order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner as contained in Annexure 12. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given additional charge of teacher appointment committee at Block level on 13.09.2006, in addition to the charge of five panchayat. His duty was to verify the documents of the candidates who has applied for the post of Teachers. On 15.11.2018, Vigilance Department conducted raid and found cash of Rs. 7,24,300/- (Seven Lakh Twenty Four Thousand and Three Hundred only) from the possession of petitioner. Certain papers was also seized by the Vigilance Department. 4. After the petitioner was released on bail, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that Vigilence Case No. 64 of 2008 was pending against him. On 12.01.2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner gave his detailed reply to the show cause notice on 23.08.2010. 5. On receipt of show cause reply of the petitioner, the Regional Deputy Director, Muzaffarpur, was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Regional Deputy Director has submitted his enquiry report as contained in Annexure 6. The Director, Secondary Education, instead of differing with the enquiry report or accepting the enquiry report, had directed the Regional Director to hold a fresh enquiry. For the purpose of present case, it will be appropriate to quote Annexure 7, the order passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, to the Regional Director which indicate that on scrutiny of the enquiry report, it was found that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and, therefore, it is not acceptable. For the purpose of present case, it will be appropriate to quote Annexure 7, the order passed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, to the Regional Director which indicate that on scrutiny of the enquiry report, it was found that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and, therefore, it is not acceptable. ^^ i=kad &9@l0iz0vk0&212@2008-----------@3557 fcgkj ek/;fed f'k{kk dk;kZy;] cq)ekxZ] iVukA izs"kd] mi funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½] fcgkj] iVUkkA lsok esa] {ks=h; f'k{kk mi funs'kd] frjgqr ize.My] eqtQjiqjA iVuk] fnukad&21@11@13 fo"k;%& tk¡p izfrosnu lefiZr djus ds laca/k esaA egk'k;] mi;ZqDr fo"k;d vkids i=kad & 99 fnukad & 28-05-2013 }kjk Jh /keZukFk feJ] lgk;d f'k{kd] mPp fo|ky; xkscjfg;k nksu] if'pe pEikj.k] Jh jktsUnz feJ] lgk;d f'k{kd] Mh-,e-,dsMeh cxgk ,oa Jh pUnu dqekj] vkns'kiky] mPp fo|ky; xkscjfg;k nksu] if'pe pEikj.k ds fo:) xfBr vkjksi ls lacaf/kr tk¡p izfrosnu miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA izkIr tk¡p izfrosnu dh leh{kk dh xbZ] leh{kk ds Øe esa ik;k x;k fd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu fof/kor :i ls ugh fd;k x;k gSA ek= [kkukiwfrZ dh xbZ gS tcfd vkjksi xEHkhj izd`fÙk ds gSA vr% tk¡p izfrosnu Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i= la[;k & 2324 fnukad & 10-07-2007 }kjk vkijkf/kd dnkpkj esa fyIr ljdkjh lsodksa ds fo:) vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh ds lkFk&lkFk foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds lca/k esa fn'kk funsZ'k tkjh gSA ¼izfr layXu½ of.kZr ifjisz{; esa dguk gS fd fof/kor Lora= :i ls foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk lapkyu dj vius Finding ds lkFk ,d i{k ds vUnj rF;kRed tk¡p izfrosnu lefiZr djs rkfd ekeys esa vko';d fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA fo'oklHkktu g0@& mi funs'kd ¼ek/;fed f'k{kk½ fcgkj iVukA^^ 6. The Regional Deputy Director, Muzaffarpur, was asked to conduct fresh enquiry and send the report. The Regional Deputy Director, on receipt of the letter dated 21.11.2013, completed the formality of the enquiry and submitted report stating therein that the petitioner is guilty of all the charges levelled against him. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that in the so called fresh enquiry, no new material was placed no witness was examined and based on the same material, on which earlier the Regional Deputy Director of Education exonerated the petitioner on all the charges and arrived to a different conclusion and reported the petitioner guilty of all the charges. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued second show cause notice on 07.04.2015 as contained in Annexure 9. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued second show cause notice on 07.04.2015 as contained in Annexure 9. The second show cause notice contained the brief of the enquiry report, but this enquiry report was not attached with the second show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12.05.2015. In none of the enquiry, the enquiry officer bother to examine the witness or the documents in support of the charges. Simply because the petitioner was accused in a vigilance case, the finding was recorded either exonerating the petitioner or holding the petitioner guilty on the basis of the lodging of F.I.R. The petitioner superannuated before final decision was taken as such departmental proceeding was converted under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules. The Director, Secondary Education, on the basis of enquiry report passed order under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules forfeiting 100% pension of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner, thereafter, filed appeal which was dismissed by the Secretary of Education Department on 18.07.2017, as contained in Annexure 12. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the second enquiry is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of The State of Assam Vs. J.R. Biswas reported in AIR 1975 SC 2277 . 11. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the judgement of the Apex Court is not applicable in the present case as the facts of the case is quite different. In that case, the enquiry report was acted upon and thereafter the second enquiry was directed whereas in the instant case the enquiry report was not accepted by the disciplinary authority and second enquiry was conducted. 12. Admitted the second enquiry report is based on the same material and as such it is unsustainable as the second enquiry report by the Regional Deputy Director is not based on appreciation of new materials, the report is more in the nature of opinion which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. From the material available on record, the Court is of the view that departmental enquiry was only a formality as no witness was examined to prove the charges and no evidence documentary or oral was produced in the enquiry. Only on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by vigilance, the petitioner was held out guilty of all the charges by the enquiry officer. Only on the basis of F.I.R. lodged by vigilance, the petitioner was held out guilty of all the charges by the enquiry officer. It is reiterated here that the enquiry officer earlier on the same material exonerated the petitioner and thereafter on the same material he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Based on such enquiry report, the respondents have proceeded and inflicted punishment of forfeiture of 100% pension of the petitioner. The forfeiture of 100% pension of a retired employee is like capital punishment and such order is unsustainable if the procedure was not followed in the process of decision making. 14. Considering the totality of the fact, the Court is of the considered view that the order contained in Annexure 11 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, and the order passed by the Secretary, Education Department, contained in Annexure 12 are unsustainable. 15. With the aforesaid, the present writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.