JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 29.09.2015 contained in Memo No. 6795(S) has been quashed and set aside with a direction to disburse the amount already recovered holding the respondent/writ petitioner entitled to get all the consequential benefits pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: The writ-petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in the year 1981 under National Rural Employment Programme (N.R.E.P.) scheme under the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar. On 27.06.1987, the petitioner and several others were upgraded / appointed as Assistant Engineer. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petitioner and others were being regularized and treated as regular employees from 1981 itself, with all consequential benefits and finally the petitioner retired as substantive Executive Engineer, Central Design Organization, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, w.e.f. 30.09.2015. That sometime in 2004, while the writ petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer, Rural Works Organization, Rural Works Sub Division, Chatra, a work for construction of road from Karma to Mahudi was allotted to one Savitri Construction, Manjhgawan, Itkhori, Chatra and one M/s. Vijay Kumar Singh, Jaiprakash Nagar, Itkhori, Chatra on 50:50 basis. After about 5 years of the completion of work, one F.I.R. No. R.C.05(A)/2010 (R) dated 16.02.2010 was registered for offences alleged to have been committed under Section 120 (B), 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 against 1. Ratneshwar Rai, the then Executive Engineer, R.W.D., Chatra, 2. M/s Savitri Construction, Manjhgawan, Itkhori, Chatra, and 3. Unknown others for alleged irregularity and illegality committed in the matter of procurement of Bitumen by play of certain Bitumen Challans, appertaining to aforesaid road. The writ petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. however in final investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. on 13.06.2011, the writ petitioner was also roped as accused along with Executive Engineer and the partners of M/s. Savitri Construction without any material basis whatsoever. The writ petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. however in final investigation report submitted by the C.B.I. on 13.06.2011, the writ petitioner was also roped as accused along with Executive Engineer and the partners of M/s. Savitri Construction without any material basis whatsoever. Consequently, cognizance was taken by the Court of Learned Spl. Judge C.B.I., Dhanbad on transfer from the Court of Spl. Judge, CBI Ranchi. The respondents/appellant constituted one parallel departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Resolution no.9181 (S) dated 04.10.2013 within the meaning of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. The said memo of charge itself was defective and illegal beside vague and nonspecific. The same was not accompanied with the statement of allegation as well as separate memo of documentary and oral witnesses. The enquiry officer submitted one enquiry report which was served upon the writ petitioner along with purported second show cause notice dated 28.03.2014 issued under the Signature of Deputy. Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand but without supply of relevant records. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the order dated 24.01.2014 will also show that merely on the basis of the F.I.R. and the submission of Charge Sheet, the petitioner has been declared guilty by conjecture and surmise and therefore the whole proceeding right from the stage of framing of charge to submission of aforesaid report/order followed by issuance of mechanical second show cause notice stands vitiated in law, as being not only violative of respondents circular dated 26.12.2012, but also being in teeth of authoritative mandate. That in the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitioner filed protest cum second show cause reply vide his letter dated 28.07.2015 with prayer to discharge him from the charges or in alternative supply documents as sought for. But since same were not supplied, he filed application under R.T.I. also. However, same were never supplied causing serious prejudice. The respondents, finally passed the order vide notification No. 6795(S) dated 29.09.2015, inflicting the following punishments: (1) Reduction to lowest stage of the pay scale of his post. (2) Recovery of proportionate loss amount of Government revenue. After about one year of the retirement w.e.f. 30.09.2015, only 90% provisional pension of the writ petitioner was sanctioned vide Order dated 09.08.2016 and still same has not been finalized. (2) Recovery of proportionate loss amount of Government revenue. After about one year of the retirement w.e.f. 30.09.2015, only 90% provisional pension of the writ petitioner was sanctioned vide Order dated 09.08.2016 and still same has not been finalized. Resultantly, the writ petitioner is getting only meager amount by way of pension on account of double jeopardy i.e., firstly by virtue of order of punishment dated 29.09.2015 and then order of provisional pension dated 09.08.2016. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner filed protest vide his Letter dated 05.12.2016 wherein he has stated that the proportionate loss amount has already been deposited in the C.B.I. Court pursuant to Order of bail and therefore the question of any deduction from pensionary benefit much less withholding of 300 days Earned Leave amount is not legal and valid. Consequently, prayer has been made to release the same, as well as differential arrears of pension. Thereafter, the writ petitioner, filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2018 wherein the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.10.2022, the order of punishment dated 29.09.2015 contained in Memo No. 6795(S) has been quashed and set aside with a direction to disburse the amount already recovered holding the respondent/writ petitioner entitled to get all the consequential benefits. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge against which the present letters patent appeal has been filed. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the respondent/writ petitioner while in service was subject to a criminal case based upon which a departmental proceeding was also initiated. Both the proceedings have gone separately. The departmental proceeding has been culminated into the order of punishment of reverting the respondent/writ petitioner to the lowest stage of pay-scale with a direction to recover the amount of loss from the respondent/writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has challenged the same by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2018 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice since as per the ground, the evidence/documents has not been produced due to which the respondent/writ petitioner has seriously been prejudiced. The respondent/writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has challenged the same by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2018 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice since as per the ground, the evidence/documents has not been produced due to which the respondent/writ petitioner has seriously been prejudiced. The learned Single Judge, had called upon the respondents and on consideration of the counter affidavit, has come to the conclusion that there is violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned order has been quashed and set aside against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4. Ms. Surabhi, learned AC to AAG-II has submitted, in course of argument, that the learned Single Judge even though came to the conclusion that there is violation of principles of natural justice then it was required to remit the matter before the appointing authority for passing the order afresh after providing the delinquent employee opportunity of hearing, but, having not done so, error has been committed. 5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has defended the impugned order and has submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered all the fact that there is violation of principles of natural justice and has come to the conclusive finding that a serious infirmity has been committed in course of the departmental proceeding, hence, if on that pretext the order of punishment has been quashed and set aside, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. However, so far as the ground or remitting the matter is concerned, argument has been advanced that for the fault/lapses committed on the part of the appellant/respondent, the respondent/writ petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 7. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the respondent/writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally during the period when a criminal case was also going on against the respondent/writ petitioner. 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 7. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the respondent/writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally during the period when a criminal case was also going on against the respondent/writ petitioner. The respondent/writ petitioner participated in the enquiry and even though the plea was taken of non-supply of the relevant documents or the evidence has not been allowed to be produced but since the same has not been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer and the charge has been found to be proved based upon which the punishment has been imposed. 8. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and by relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Arun Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., passed in W.P.(S) No. 5205 of 2018 has quashed and set aside the order of punishment. The same is under challenge in this appeal. 9. The appellant-State has submitted that even accepting the fact that there is violation of principles of natural justice then in order to come to the rightful end with respect to the irregularity committed by the respondent/writ petitioner, the matter ought to have been remitted before the disciplinary authority for the purpose of testing the veracity of the allegation as has been leveled against the respondent/writ petitioner. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that if any departmental proceeding is initiated against a delinquent employee, it is required to give it a rightful end and if the order of punishment which is being passed on culmination of the departmental proceeding suffers from violation of principles of natural justice or the relevant provision of the discipline and conduct rule even though the appointing authority is well conversant with the aforesaid rule but defying the same, the departmental proceeding has continued and on culmination, the order of punishment if has been passed, then as to whether for the fault committed by the disciplinary authority, will it be proper for the Court to remit the matter to subject the delinquent employee to further face the rigour of the departmental proceeding. 11. 11. The reference herein is required to be made with respect to the provision of Rule 55-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 wherein the details have been provided making it specific regarding the requirement which is to be conducted in course of regular departmental proceeding. For ready reference, the provision of Rule 55-A of the Rules, 1930 is being referred as under: “[Rule - 55-A. Without prejudice to the provisions of rule 55, no order imposing the penalty specified in clauses (i), (ii), or (iv) of rule 49 (other than an order based on facts which led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or by a Court-Martial, or an order superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the ground of his unfitness for that post) on any Government servant to whom these rules are applicable shall be passed unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed: Provided that the requirements of this rule may for sufficient reasons to be recoded in writing, be waived where there is difficulty in observing them and where they can be waived without injustice to the officer concerned.” 12. It further needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 wherein on the ground of non-supply of the relevant documents, if any punishment is being imposed, the same cannot be said to be justified. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paragraphs-28 to 31 of the said judgment are being referred as under: “28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 31. In Shaughnessy v. United States [97 L Ed 956 : 345 US 206 (1952)] (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: (L Ed p. 969) “… Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied.” 13. Herein, the learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion based upon the appreciation of the pleading of the State that the principles of natural justice has not been followed since the relevant documents were not proved and even the adequate and sufficient opportunity was not provided to the respondent/writ petitioner which led the learned Single Judge to interfere with the impugned order as also the finding recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report. 14. 14. The question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent that even accepting the fact that there is violation of principles of natural justice then the matter ought to have been remitted before the authority concerned for the purpose of coming to the rightful conclusion after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent/writ petitioner. 15. But, herein, the aforesaid fact cannot be applied in routine wise since the same is to be dealt with depending upon the facts and circumstances but before coming to the facts and circumstances, it needs to refer herein the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 wherein at paragraphs-18, 19 & 21 it has been observed which reads as under: “18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar case [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]. 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar case [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704]. 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer. 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.” 16. In the said case, the consideration has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court that on the issue of difference of opinion with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority with the finding of the enquiry officer, which is to be followed, in that circumstances, if the same has not been followed, whether after superannuation of the employee, will it be proper to remit the matter to follow the said process. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that due to the fault committed on the part of the appointing authority, the delinquent employee may not be allowed to face the rigour of the fresh departmental proceeding. 17. This Court applying the aforesaid factual aspect in the present fact, wherein the departmental proceeding was initiated wherein the order of punishment was passed which has been quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 11.10.2022. 18. The question will be that when the law is there stipulating the process to initiate departmental proceeding by taking care of the opportunity to be given to the delinquent employee and even if the disciplinary or the enquiry officer is not following the same then according to the considered view of this Court, the fault lies with the disciplinary authority and the law is well settled that for any wrong committed by a party concerned, the sufferer cannot be allowed to be subjected as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra (supra), particularly observation so made at paragraph-21 which has already been quoted above. 19. Herein, no witnesses were examined in support of the charge which was framed against the respondent/writ petitioner. Moreover, respondent/writ petitioner was not supplied the relevant documents which were asked by him so that he may defend his case properly which resulted into violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent/writ petitioner has faced the rigour of the departmental proceeding for about 8 years, and in that circumstances, if the matter will be remitted before the authority for initiating departmental proceeding afresh the same will be harsh and for no fault of the respondent/writ petitioner he will again be subjected to face the rigour of the departmental proceeding. 20. This Court, based upon the aforesaid reasoning, is of the view that if the learned Single Judge has decided to not remit the matter after quashing of the order and setting aside the order of punishment, the same according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from error. 21. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.