JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the Resolution no.3093 dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the respondent no.3 whereby a punishment of withholding of 3% of pension permanently has been imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner has further challenged the Resolution no.4015 dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure-10), whereby 2% of permanent deduction from pension has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules and also for a direction upon the respondents to pay the balance amount of pension, full gratuity, full leave salary and other consequential retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest @ 18% per annum from the date of such dues till the date of actual payment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are two impugned orders which are annexed as Annexure-9 & 10 to the writ application. Vide Annexure-9 the petitioner has been imposed punishment of withholding of 3% pension permanently in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Whereas, vide Annexure-10 the petitioner has been imposed punishment for 2% of permanent deduction from pension under Rule 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules. For the first impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 04.06.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-6); the Disciplinary Authority, without issuing any show cause notice by giving reasons for differing with the view of the Inquiry Officer, issued a second show-cause notice under 43(b) dated 05.10.2012 as the petitioner retired from his service way back on 31.05.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Annexure-9 is bad in law on two accounts. Firstly, the riders as imposed under 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule has not been complied with inasmuch as the cause of action for the alleged charge was with respect to May, 1995 to 21.7.1998 whereas the notice under 43(b) has been issued on 05.10.2012. His next contention with respect to this punishment is that the punishment is also bad in law inasmuch as no show-cause notice was given to him before differing with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer as the Inquiry Officer has already exonerated the petitioner. His next contention with respect to this punishment is that the punishment is also bad in law inasmuch as no show-cause notice was given to him before differing with the opinion of the Inquiry Officer as the Inquiry Officer has already exonerated the petitioner. In order to buttress his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & MD ITI Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law for issuing a show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority, if he differs with the view of Enquiry Officer. 4. For the 2nd punishment imposed u/s 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules which is annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically stated in paragraph no.14 and 15 that the petitioner was never served with any sort of charge-sheet. For better appreciation of the case paragraph nos.14 and 15 of the writ petition is quoted herein below:- “14. That, from a bare perusal of the enquiry report, it would be evident that by letter no.7000 dated 28.12.2005, the enquiry team was shown to have been constituted. It is pertinent to mention here that for the first time the petitioner was served with a Notice on 08.12.2006 and save and except such notice of explanation, the petitioner was never served with any sort of charge-sheet. 15. That, the alleged enquiry report dated 07.02.2006 would further reveal that no enquiry was held nor any opportunity was provided to the petitioner either to submit written Statement of defence or evidence in support of the defence, rather, such enquiry report is nothing but a table report which can not be constructed to be an enquiry report in connection with a Departmental proceeding within the meaning of the Service Jurisprudence.” 5. At this stage it is pertinent to mention here that the respondent has duly replied at paragraph 20 of their counter affidavit dated 14.12.2017, wherein they have not commented anything. For better appreciation paragraph 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit is quoted herein below:- “19. That in reply to para 14 it is stated that the same needs no comments. 20. For better appreciation paragraph 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit is quoted herein below:- “19. That in reply to para 14 it is stated that the same needs no comments. 20. That in reply to para 15 it is stated that the petitioner was asked for an explanation vide letter no.5960 dated 08.12.2006 and therefore a 2nd show cause notice was also asked from him vide Resolution no.1786 dated 17.04.2012. Under the facts it is evident that the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to place his defence.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner for the second punishment contended that unless and until the charge-sheet is issued, how a punishment can be imposed on the basis of enquiry report by a committee. He further submits that any action purported to be taken under Section 139 (c) of the Bihar Pension Rule has to be based on a charge. He further contended that so far as this charge is concerned, the punishment has been imposed on the basis of report of enquiry committee on a general charge and no charge-sheet was ever issued against this petitioner. In other words, it was an internal report. He further submits that even assuming for a moment that the entire enquiry report is correct, then also no proper opportunity was ever given to this petitioner to lay his defense as because the said enquiry was the internal departmental enquiry to ascertain certain facts. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He further submits that so far as punishment no.1 is concerned, a proper charge-sheet was issued and second show-cause notice was issued to him under 43(b) because the petitioner retired from service as such, no infirmity can be pointed out in issuance of the proceeding. However learned counsel could not dispute the fact that the said 43(b) notice was dated 5.10.2012 for the alleged misconduct of the period May 1995 to 21.07.1998. Further, learned counsel for the respondents could not bring on record any specific show-cause by the disciplinary authority giving reasons to differ from the report of an enquiry officer. For the 2nd punishment u/s 139 (c) of the Bihar Pension Rule, learned counsel vehemently supported Annexure-10 by submitting that there was an enquiry report which was conducted and thereafter, show cause notice was also issued against the petitioner and only then, the impugned order was passed. For the 2nd punishment u/s 139 (c) of the Bihar Pension Rule, learned counsel vehemently supported Annexure-10 by submitting that there was an enquiry report which was conducted and thereafter, show cause notice was also issued against the petitioner and only then, the impugned order was passed. However, he could not dispute the fact that no charge-sheet was ever issued against this petitioner for the alleged charge though a show-cause notice was issued but no proper departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of this charge. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record the instant writ application needs to be allowed for following reasons :- (a) Annexure-9 is the order of punishment whereby the pension of the petitioner has been deducted by 3%, has been issued under the alleged power of 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules for the cause of action which accrue in May 1995 to 21.07.1998. The same is not permissible in view of specific provision enshrined u/s 43(b) (ii) of the Rules. (b) Though the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from the charges, the Disciplinary authority without issuing any specific show-cause notice giving reasons to differ with the view of Inquiry Officer, the second show-cause notice was issued and punishment was imposed, which is against the settled principle as laid down in the case of Lav Nigam (supra) wherein at para 10, 13, 14 held as follows:- 10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed. 13. We have already quoted the extracts from the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority. It is clear that no notice at all was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of fact of the inquiry officer. The notice to show cause was merely a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. It is clear that no notice at all was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing with the finding of fact of the inquiry officer. The notice to show cause was merely a show-cause against the proposed punishment. In view of the long line of authorities, the decision of the High Court cannot be sustained. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. 14. The proceedings may be recommenced from the stage of issuance of a fresh show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority to the appellant indicating his tentative disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer. (c) So far as Annexure-10 is concerned whereby the petitioner has been imposed punishment of deduction of 2% pension, suffers from procedural irregularities. It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that any departmental proceedings commence with serving of charge-sheet and culminate in passing of the impugned order. In the instant case no charge-sheet has been brought on record by the respondent board and the order has been passed. The Respondent relied upon a general enquiry report which cannot be said to be a charge-sheet by any stretch of imagination. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings, the impugned order as contained in resolution no.3093 dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure-9) issued under the signature of the respondent no.3 whereby a punishment of withholding of 3% of pension permanently has been imposed upon the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is quashed and set-aside. Further, the Resolution no.4015 dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure-10), whereby 2% of permanent deduction from pension has been imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 139(C) of the Bihar Pension Rules is also quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation along with a copy of this order before the respondent no.2 within a period of three months from today for re-settlement of his pension and other retiral dues. If any such representation is filed before the Respondent No.2, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law, rule and regulation and in the light of findings mentioned herein above. The amount which would be found payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him and pension shall be re-fixed within a further period of two months. 10. The amount which would be found payable to the petitioner shall be paid to him and pension shall be re-fixed within a further period of two months. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.