JUDGMENT : With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No.1339 of 2021 2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay in preferring this appeal. 3. However, the office has reported that in view of the order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in suo motu Writ Civil No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the appeal is within time, therefore, no order is required to be passed in the present interlocutory application and the same is consigned to the record. However, this order would be subject to any objection raised in future by any aggrieved party. Interlocutory order stands consigned. L.P.A. No.89 of 2021 4.Theinstantintra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.466 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the order passed by the disciplinary authority, as contained in Resolution dated 10.04.2019, by which punishment of withholding of two increments of pay with cumulative effect under Rule 14(vi) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 2016, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, 2016, was inflicted upon the writ petitioner, has been quashed and set aside, and the writ petitioner has been held entitled for consequential benefits. 5. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The writ petitioner has been appointed in the Jharkhand Administrative Service in the year 2010. He was posted as Block Development Officer at Ormanjhi Block in the district of Ranchi. The writ petitioner while working as such, was served with a show cause from the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand dated 13.10.2016, whereby he was directed to reply on the charges of commission of alleged irregularities. The writ petitioner had replied, but the parent department did not find the reply furnished by the writ petitioner to be satisfactory and, as such, decided to initiate departmental proceeding vide Resolution dated 25.09.2017 in exercise of power conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2016. A memorandum of charge was served. The writ petitioner had replied, but the parent department did not find the reply furnished by the writ petitioner to be satisfactory and, as such, decided to initiate departmental proceeding vide Resolution dated 25.09.2017 in exercise of power conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules, 2016. A memorandum of charge was served. The writ petitioner was directed to reply on the charges levelled against him before the conducting officer. The writ petitioner submitted his reply of defence before the conducting officer on 20.12.2017. The writ petitioner was also allowed to file supplementary reply to the charges. The enquiry proceeded, in which the writ petitioner had participated. The enquiry officer found the charges not proved and forwarded the report before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice upon which the reply was furnished but the aforesaid reply was not found to be satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and order of punishment was passed on 10.04.2019 inflicting the punishment of withholding of two annual increments. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, preferred writ petition before this Court by invoking jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner took the grounds before the learned Single Judge that even though the charges have not been found to be proved in course of enquiry, the disciplinary authority without differing with the same or showing the reason for difference or providing an opportunity of hearing on the point of difference, issued second show cause notice. The second show cause notice was duly replied but the said reply was found not to be satisfactory and order of punishment was passed. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, material irregularity was committed while inflicting the punishment upon the petitioner in the facts of this case because in course of enquiry the charges were not found to be proved and in that circumstances it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer showing the reason of difference and providing the opportunity of hearing before inflicting any punishment, as provided under the provision of Rules, 2016 but without resorting to the such legal procedure, since the major punishment has been imposed, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The other point has also been taken, i.e., the non-observance of principle of parity in imposing punishment, since one Junior Engineer against whom similar charges were levelled, was punished with the punishment of warning as also the disciplinary authority has passed order relying upon the fact finding enquiry report dated 08.06.2017, which has never been before the enquiry officer. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid legal position, has interfered with the order of punishment by quashing and setting it aside which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand. 6. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II, has not disputed the legal position and the power which was to be exercised by the disciplinary authority in a case where the charge has not been found to be proved by the enquiry officer as has been settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra [ (1998) 7 SCC 84 ], but he contends that in that circumstances since the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority, as such, after quashing and setting aside the order impugned by which punishment has been inflicted, the matter ought to have been remitted before the disciplinary authority to take fresh decision by following the established rule, having not done so, the impugned order suffers from patent illegality. Such submission has been made on the basis of the ground that if any technical lapses have been committed by the disciplinary authority, no person can be allowed to take advantage of technicalities, rather in such circumstances, the matter requires fresh consideration by the disciplinary authority after observance of the settled position of law. 7. Mr. Such submission has been made on the basis of the ground that if any technical lapses have been committed by the disciplinary authority, no person can be allowed to take advantage of technicalities, rather in such circumstances, the matter requires fresh consideration by the disciplinary authority after observance of the settled position of law. 7. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner, has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge since the order has been passed relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) and admittedly, in the present case, the enquiry officer has not found the charges proved against the writ petitioner and in that circumstances, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer by giving the reason of difference and thereafter to provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner but having not done so, material irregularity has been found to be committed in the process and, therefore, impugned order has been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has also considered the principle of maintaining parity in imposing punishment since one Junior Engineer having committed same irregularity, has been inflicted with the punishment of warning which is another reason to interfere with the order passed by the administrative authority in inflicting punishment. He further contends that the disciplinary authority has further committed error by putting reliance upon the internal enquiry conducted by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj dated 08.06.2017, even though the aforesaid document has never been a part of the proceeding before the enquiry officer and it is settled that a document which is not part of the proceeding, cannot be relied by the disciplinary authority while inflicting punishment. Mr. Tandon, in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that since the learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order inflicting punishment upon the writ petitioner on the aforesaid grounds, it is not fit to be interfered with and, as such, the instant appeal may be dismissed. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. Before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order, it requires to refer certain undisputed facts i.e., admittedly, a departmental proceeding was decided to be initiated against the writ petitioner on the basis of the report dated 08.06.2017 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj with respect to commission of irregularities in execution of work pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The writ petitioner participated before the enquiry officer and defended himself by furnishing the detailed reply. Altogether 14 charges were levelled against the writ petitioner. It appears from the enquiry report that all the charges were not found to be proved, however, the enquiry officer has observed in the concluding part of the enquiry report that there was negligence on the part of the writ petitioner in supervising the work but has also recorded that it is due to the writ petitioner no money has been disbursed in favour of beneficiaries and other stake holders. The enquiry officer forwarded the said report before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued second show-cause notice asking the writ petitioner to reply with respect to the proposed punishment, as would appear from second show-cause notice dated 12.10.2018 appended as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner furnished his detailed reply vide Annexure-5 dated 29.01.2019 but the said reply was found to be not satisfactory, therefore, the order of punishment was passed against the writ petitioner vide Resolution dated 10.04.2019 inflicting punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, as would appear from Annexure-6 appended to the writ petition. The order of punishment has been questioned before this Court by invoking jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by taking the ground that in a case where the enquiry officer has not found the charges proved, the procedure is to provide opportunity of hearing by the disciplinary authority on the point of difference with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer but the same having not been done, the principle of natural justice has been violated. The second ground is about non-observance of the principle of parity in awarding punishment and the third ground is that the disciplinary authority has relied upon a document which was not part of the enquiry proceeding. The learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 10.04.2019 considering the aforesaid grounds to be applicable, which is the subject matter herein. 10. The fact about following the procedure in a case where the enquiry officer did not find the charge proved against one or the other delinquent employee who is facing the enquiry has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, as has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) but the contention has been made that even accepting the said fact to be in the case, the matter ought to have been remitted before the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision after following the process of inflicting punishment in such circumstances. Serious objection has been raised to such submission by Mr. Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner by taking the plea that interference has been shown by the learned Single Judge not only on that ground but apart from that the other grounds i.e., non-observance of principle of parity in imposing punishment and reliance placed by the disciplinary authority in the foreign document i.e., the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj dated 08.06.2017, have also been taken into consideration. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge regarding the procedure to be followed in a case where the charges have not been found to be proved against the delinquent employee by the enquiry officer is not being questioned by the learned counsel for the appellants and it cannot be questioned due to the settled position of law in this regard, as has been held in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra (Supra), therefore, we are proceeding to examine the submission made on behalf of the appellants pertaining to remand of the matter before the disciplinary authority in order to pass a fresh order. 11. However, objection has been made for remitting the matter before the authority on the other ground i.e., non-observance of principle of parity in imposing punishment and reliance has been placed upon a foreign document by the disciplinary authority. 11. However, objection has been made for remitting the matter before the authority on the other ground i.e., non-observance of principle of parity in imposing punishment and reliance has been placed upon a foreign document by the disciplinary authority. So far as the question of observance of the principle of parity in imposing punishment is concerned, according to our considered view, the position of law is very clear in this regard since in a case where same and similar charges are framed against more than one delinquent, the process is to follow the principle of parity in imposing punishment as has been held in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [ (2013) 3 SCC 73 ], wherein at paragraph 9 and 10 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 10. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan [ (1998) 2 SCC 407 ] wherein one Dasayan, a police constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The disciplinary authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on the Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” But as would be evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case referred hereinabove, the requirement before considering the aforesaid position of law is that the charges of delinquent employee are required to be seen and in a case of same and similar charge, if there is any discrimination in imposing the punishment, certainly such order of punishment will hit the Article 14 of the Constitution of India due to non-observance of principle of parity in imposing punishment. 12. We have proceeded to examine the factual aspect on the pretext of the aforesaid position of law by taking the fact of the given case herein. It appears that one Pawan Kumar Das, during the relevant time, was working as Junior Engineer on contract basis under the MGNREGA Scheme. Since he was on contract, therefore, when the irregularity was found against the said Technical Assistant equivalent to Junior Engineer, recommendation was made to rescind his contract. But the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Dumka, considered the report furnished by Block Development Officer, Pathna wherefrom the charge as was levelled against him was not found to be proved, therefore, he was warned, as would appear from the order dated 25.10.2016, as appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, however, in the impugned order, has referred the status of the said Pawan Kumar Das as a “co-delinquent employee”. There is no dispute about the fact that the delinquent employee means an employee who is facing charges of misconduct and if the word “co” is there, it simply suggests that the said employee is also facing the same charge as that of other delinquent employee. There is no dispute about the fact that the delinquent employee means an employee who is facing charges of misconduct and if the word “co” is there, it simply suggests that the said employee is also facing the same charge as that of other delinquent employee. But the fact which is not in dispute herein is that the said Pawan Kumar Das, Technical Assistant, posted during the relevant time, has never been issued with the memorandum of charge and he could not have been because he was not under the regular establishment of the State rather he was under the MGNREGA Scheme working on contract basis and as such, no charge memo was issued against him since he was not coming under the fold of provisions of Rules, 2016 i.e., applicable Discipline and Conduct Rules. Since there is no similar charge memo was issued against the said Pawan Kumar Das, the then Technical Assistant, therefore, reference made by the learned Single Judge about the status of said Pawan Kumar Das to be of co-delinquent employee which led him to consider the settled position of law in showing interference with the order imposing punishment by observing that no punishment has been imposed against said Pawan Kumar Das, according to our considered view, is an error committed by the learned Single Judge. Such finding is being recorded by this Court for the reason that if the status of Pawan Kumar Das would have been same as that of the writ petitioner by issuing memorandum of charge against him if he would have been under the regular establishment of the State Government then the matter would have been different but certainly in that circumstances the principle of parity in imposing punishment ought to have been followed but that is not the fact herein, therefore, the reason of learned Single Judge for showing interference in the impugned order to the effect that the principle of parity in imposing punishment has not been followed by the administrative authority, according to our considered view, ought not to have been applied by the learned Single Judge. 13. 13. So far as the contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that on technicalities no one can be allowed to take advantage as has been the case herein since the learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned order on the ground that the disciplinary authority has failed to point out the reason of difference with the enquiry officer. 14. We, before answering this issue, have gone across the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) wherein the matter has been refused to be remitted by taking into consideration the fact that the delinquent employee of the said case since has retired from service, therefore, it will be very harsh for the delinquent employee to again subject him to face the rigor of the departmental proceeding, as would appear from paragraph 21 of the judgment, which reads as under : “21. Both the respondents superannuated on 31-12-1983. During the pendency of these appeals, Misra died on 6-1-1995 and his legal representatives were brought on record. More than 14 years have elapsed since the delinquent officers had superannuated. It will, therefore, not be in the interest of justice that at this stage the cases should be remanded to the disciplinary authority for the start of another innings. We, therefore, do not issue any such directions and while dismissing these appeals, we affirm the decisions of the High Court which had set aside the orders imposing penalty and had directed the appellants to release the retirement benefits to the respondents. There will, however, be no order as to costs.” In the present case, the fact is quite different as the writ petitioner herein joined the State cadre in the year 2010 and still in service and, therefore, the exception which has been carved out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra (Supra) will not be applicable in the facts of this case. 15. It is equally settled that no one can be allowed to take advantage of technicalities, rather, if any technical lapse has been committed by the disciplinary authority, the proper course for the court of law is to remit the matter before the concerned authority to pass fresh order after following the settled law and the procedure. 16. 15. It is equally settled that no one can be allowed to take advantage of technicalities, rather, if any technical lapse has been committed by the disciplinary authority, the proper course for the court of law is to remit the matter before the concerned authority to pass fresh order after following the settled law and the procedure. 16. This court, therefore, is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for quashing of the impugned order on the ground of non-observance of law in a case where the charge has not been found to be proved against the delinquent employee by the enquiry officer, cannot be said to be justified and if it will be held to be justified, the same will be nothing but a persons will be allowed to take advantage of technicalities which will not serve the purpose Discipline and Conduct Rule to deal with an employee by taking appropriate decision in accordance with law. 17. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge wherein the order of imposing punishment has been quashed and set aside, suffers from error. 18. The argument which has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner that the disciplinary authority has relied upon a foreign document which is not permissible but on that submission/ground we are not passing any order since we are remitting the matter before the disciplinary authority to take decision afresh. Since the matter is being remitted before the disciplinary authority, the writ petitioner can well raise this issue for its consideration in accordance with law. 19. Accordingly and in the entirety of the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from error. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. 20. In the result, the matter is remitted before the disciplinary authority for taking decision afresh, in accordance with law, and the observations made hereinabove. Such exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Needless to say that the entitlement of consequential benefit, as directed by the learned Single Judge, will depend upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority as directed. 21. Such exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Needless to say that the entitlement of consequential benefit, as directed by the learned Single Judge, will depend upon the final outcome of the decision to be taken by the disciplinary authority as directed. 21. The instant appeal stands allowed accordingly with the direction and observation as above. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.