JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. Initially the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.5610 of 2009 on 02.12.2009 for the following reliefs:- “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction for quashing the notification as contained in notification No.28/04 dated 7.1.05 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished for the punishment of Censure and 3 annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect. (ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with penal interest.” And for other ancillary reliefs. 2. Thereafter the respondents- State of Jharkhand had appeared and filed counter affidavit on 22.01.2010 and although the copy of counter affidavit filed by the State of Bihar was served to the learned counsel for the petitioner on 28.01.2010 but the said counter affidavit of the State of Bihar is not on record. 3. Thereafter even the petitioner had filed supplementary affidavit on 26.06.2012 and 25.10.2016. 4. Thereafter the amended writ petition was filed on 14.01.2013 which was filed in the light of the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Alok Singh). 5. In the amended writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer, as follows:- “(i) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification as contained in notification No.8/04 dated 7.1.2005 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished for the punishment of Censure and 3 annual increments have been withheld with cumulative effect. (ii) For the issuance of an appropriate writ order direction commanding upon the respondent to forthwith release the entire arrears of difference of salary along with penal interest. (iii) For the issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the order dated 18.10.2002 whereby and whereunder departmental proceeding has been initiated against the present petitioner as the same is completely with malice as because the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who had initiated the proceeding, was held guilty in a complaint filed by the petitioner and just after 2 months of conviction of the impugned order was passed.” And for other ancillary reliefs. 6. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar, who has appeared in person and argued this case, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A (Bihar) for the State of Bihar and Mr. 6. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar, who has appeared in person and argued this case, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A (Bihar) for the State of Bihar and Mr. Ranjan Kumar learned A.C to Sr.SC-I for the State. 7. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Notification dated 07.01.2005 (i.e. Annexure-14) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government by which the punishment of Censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect has been made, are illegal, arbitrary and out of malice at the behest of the Respondent No.5. It is submitted that the petitioner was not an employee of the State of Bihar and yet the P.C.C.F, Bihar had initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and later on even after transfer of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State, the departmental proceeding had continued and the punishment order was passed by the State of Jharkhand who has no authority to impose any punishment upon the petitioner. It is submitted that though at the relevant time the petitioner was working in the State of Bihar when departmental proceeding was initiated vide order dated 18.10.2002 (Annexure-9) but yet the P.C.C.F. Bihar had no authority and jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner as at the relevant time the petitioner was Range Officer, which is Gazette post as per Gazette Notification dated 22.02.1973 issued by the State of Jharkhand as contained in supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2016 vide Annexure- S.A-4. 8. It is submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner in the departmental enquiry to defend his case. It is submitted that neither the documents, as sought for by the petitioner, were supplied to him nor he was allowed to lead any evidence. It is submitted that even the Forest Department had not lead any oral or documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer and the petitioner was held guilty merely on the basis of memo of charges submitted against him and the petitioner had merely questioned the initiation of departmental proceeding vide letter dated 17.03.2004 (vide Annexure-H which is enclosed in the counter affidavit of the State of Jharkhand) sent by the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer and which was treated as the show cause to the petitioner. It is submitted that the State of Bihar has no authority to impose punishment upon the petitioner and it was the P.C.C.F, Bihar vide letter dated 26.07.2004 (Annexure-G) who had recommended and proposed the punishment of Censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect and which was approved by the authorities of the State of Jharkhand and which shows that the P.C.C.F, Bihar was instrumental in getting hold guilty of the writ petitioner. It is submitted that even the petitioner had filed the Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 07.03.2005 (vide Annexure-SA-19) but the same was dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2005 (vide Annexure-SA-21). It is submitted that no regular departmental proceeding was conducted in terms of Rule 18 (7) of Jharkhand Government (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated in the eye of law and the finding of the Enquiry Officer and the punishment order of the disciplinary authority as contained in Annexure-05 and Annexure-14 are illegal and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. 9. It is submitted that the reason of initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner is that the petitioner had made complaint against one Murariji Mishra, the then I.F.S, Work Project Officer, Forest Department for demanding Rs.50,000/- cash by adjustment and for passing forged bills and for which the petitioner had made complaint before the U.P.S.C, New Delhi. Thereafter Forest Secretary, Government of Bihar had imposed the punishment of Censure and Prohibition of promotion for a period of three years vide letter dated 20.11.2000 (Annexure-5) sent to the Conservator of Forest to the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar. It is submitted that said Murariji Mishra and one N.K. Sharma had victimized the petitioner. 10. Thereafter Forest Secretary, Government of Bihar had imposed the punishment of Censure and Prohibition of promotion for a period of three years vide letter dated 20.11.2000 (Annexure-5) sent to the Conservator of Forest to the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar. It is submitted that said Murariji Mishra and one N.K. Sharma had victimized the petitioner. 10. The petitioner in support of his submission has relied upon the order passed by this Court and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as follows:- (i) Anand Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (S) No. 5273 of 2007 disposed of on 17.03.2011 (ii) Bhupendra Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (S) No. 478 of 2013 disposed of on 09.12.2013 (iii) State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Another, 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhr.) Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and he had joined on the post of Range Officer and had retired also from the post of Range Officer and as such the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be given his arrears of salary with 6% interest per annum with penal interest or as may be deemed fit and proper by this Court. 11. On the other hand, learned G.A appearing for the State of Bihar has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Respondent authorities are fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on merit and hence there is no merit in this writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has been held guilty for several charges and as such he was awarded punishment of Censure and withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effects. It is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case but he failed to examine any witness and failed to prove any document. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against said Murariji Mishra and M.K. Sharma, PCCF, Bihar are baseless and no reliance can be placed on such wild allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case but he failed to examine any witness and failed to prove any document. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against said Murariji Mishra and M.K. Sharma, PCCF, Bihar are baseless and no reliance can be placed on such wild allegations. It is submitted that the petitioner has tried to defalcate Rs.1,25,000/- from the department and had also withdrawn Rs.10,000/- cash from the Forester and for which he has been held guilty for the charges by the Enquiry Officer and as such the punishment imposed by the department is appropriate and proper. 12. Learned counsel for the State has relied upon the Annexure-A to Annexure-C of the reply dated 16.08.2012. It is submitted that the P.C.C.F, Bihar has issued office order dated 18.10.2002 initiating departmental proceeding against him which has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that vide Notification No.1906 dated 29.06.2001, the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar has changed the guideline for appointment, transfer, posting and departmental proceeding of Range Officer of Forest and delegated the power to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar Patna. The proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated in the year 2002 and the photo copy of Notification No.1906 dated 29.06.2001 has been enclosed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that petitioner has filed 28 writ petitions in this High Court during his tenure of posting and details of which have been given at para-10 of the counter affidavit and most of the writ petitions are related to payment of unauthorized leave at different places of posting in Jharkhand and against departmental proceeding against higher officials. It is submitted that even one L.P.A No.196 of 2011 was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had passed adverse remarks against the petitioner also. It is submitted that four departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for serious charges of defalcation of Government money, unauthorized absence from common duty and notification have been enclosed as Annexure-A series. In the counter affidavit dated 17.12.2016 filed by the Respondent no.1 i.e. State of Jharkhand, it is stated that two departmental proceedings were pending against him at enquiry stage and proceeding of said enquiry has been enclosed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 13. In the counter affidavit dated 17.12.2016 filed by the Respondent no.1 i.e. State of Jharkhand, it is stated that two departmental proceedings were pending against him at enquiry stage and proceeding of said enquiry has been enclosed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 13. In the supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.05.2024 filed on behalf of the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, it has been indicated that the punishment has been inflicted against the petitioner i.e. Anand Kumar by the State of Jharkrhand, Department of Forest and Environment vide Notification dated 07.01.2005 and not by the P.C.C.F and the Notification dated 07.01.2005 has been enclosed as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. It is submitted that the charge sheet (Prapatra "Ka") has been issued to the petitioner vide office memo dated 18.10.2002 which is marked as Annexure-B. 14. It is submitted that submission of the petitioner to consult Jharkhand Public Service Commission is devoid of merit in view of Notification No.118 dated 16.01.2001 which is enclosed as Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit. It is submitted that P.C.C.F, Bihar initiated the departmental proceedings against the petitioner since the period of defalcation is before the bifurcation of State of Bihar on 15.11.2000 and the charged officer (i.e. the petitioner herein) was posted in the State of Bihar till May, 2004 hence the departmental proceeding has been rightly initiated by the PCCF, Bihar, Patna. The learned counsel has referred letter No.2770 dated 06.05.2004 the Govt. of Bihar, Home Department and Govt. of India, order dated 26.04.2004. It is submitted that the procedure followed by the Respondent was just, fair and reasonable. 15. It is submitted that altogether six charges were framed against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. All the six charges were proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the said enquiry. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar vide Memo No.37 dated 08.01.2003. The Column-3 is the analysis of defence of the party made by the Conducting Officer which will show that the petitioner in the said enquiry sought not only to cross-examine three departmental Commissioner-cum-Secretary apart from various officials like Conservator of Forest but also one member of Legislative Assembly/Ex-Chief Minister of Bihar namely Lalu Prasad Yadav. The Column-3 is the analysis of defence of the party made by the Conducting Officer which will show that the petitioner in the said enquiry sought not only to cross-examine three departmental Commissioner-cum-Secretary apart from various officials like Conservator of Forest but also one member of Legislative Assembly/Ex-Chief Minister of Bihar namely Lalu Prasad Yadav. It is pertinent to mention here that said officials/Member of Legislative Assembly/Ex-Chief Minister were not concerned in any manner with the charges levelled against the petitioner. The aforesaid fact shows the conduct of the petitioner who tried to delay/deviate the proceedings by such conduct from the specific charges framed against the petitioner and the Enquiry Report was submitted which is enclosed as Annexure-E. 16. It is submitted that even second show cause was issued to the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar directed the petitioner to submit his show cause in connection with the aforesaid enquiry. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna Bihar issued several letters to the petitioner, the details of which are as follows, letter No.513 dated 29.01.2003, letter No.1879 dated 04.04.2003, letter No.1035 dated 10.03.2004 and letter No.2234 dated 24.04.2004 for submitting the show cause so that the final decision in the matter could be taken. It is submitted that during this period after allocation of cadre, the petitioner had joined Jharkhand State in June, 2004 without informing Government of Bihar. As such the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar vide his Memo no.2896 dated 02.07.2004 requested the Secretary Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand to direct the petitioner to submit his show cause to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar so that final decision in connection with the aforesaid enquiry can be taken by the Principal Chief Conservator, Patna, Bihar. The aforesaid facts speak volumes about the steps and endeavours taken by the State of Bihar both before cadre allocation and after cadre allocation so that petitioner files his second show cause so that final decision may be taken in the matter. The photo copy of memo dated 02.07.2004 has been enclosed as Annexure-F by which the petitioner was posted in the State of Jharkhand. 17. The photo copy of memo dated 02.07.2004 has been enclosed as Annexure-F by which the petitioner was posted in the State of Jharkhand. 17. It is submitted that since the petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand after allocation of cadre the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar vide his Memo No.3281 dated 26.07.2004 transmitted the entire record of case to the Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Jharkhand to take final decision in the matter which has been enclosed as Annexure-G. 18. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 17.03.2004 to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar against the letter No.1035 dated 10.03.2004, Patna and also filed reply dated 14.08.2004 (Annexure-H) to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand find no grounds in the said show cause to go against the finding of the Enquiry Officer and had punished the petitioner with the punishment of Censure and withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect vide Notification No.63 dated 07.01.2005. The photo copy of show cause reply dated 14.08.2004 and Notification dated 07.01.2005 have been annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-H and Annexure-I respectively. Thus, it is evident that petitioner has not been prejudiced on account of non- supply of document sought for by the petitioner during the departmental enquiry. 19. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a review petition before the Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand against the said notification imposing punishment on the petitioner and the same has been dismissed. It is submitted that the Respondent has provided every opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case and therefore, there is no illegality in the departmental proceeding. 20. It is submitted that it is evident from the records in the instant writ petition itself, wherein the Govt. of Bihar vide letter no.947 dated 28.03.2000 and letter no.2183 dated 21.07.2000 sought explanation from the petitioner and the petitioner had replied vide his letter dated 14.08.2000. The photo copy of letter dated 28.03.2000 and letter dated 21.07.2000 by which petitioner was sought explanation and the reply of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2000 have been marked as Annexures-J and K respectively. 21. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has also adopted the submission of the learned G.A. Bihar. 22. The photo copy of letter dated 28.03.2000 and letter dated 21.07.2000 by which petitioner was sought explanation and the reply of the petitioner vide letter dated 14.08.2000 have been marked as Annexures-J and K respectively. 21. Learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand has also adopted the submission of the learned G.A. Bihar. 22. Having heard the learned counsels for both the sides and from going through the records of this case, it appears that while the petitioner was posted as Range Forest Officer in the year 1999, he had made a complaint on 08.04.2009 (i.e. Annexure-1) against his Controlling Officer, Sri Murari Ji Mishra, I.F.S to the effect that said Controlling Officer, Murari Ji Mishra had given a cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) with direction that Rs.50,000/- out of said Rs.1,25,000/- may be deposited in the personal bank account of Murari Ji Mishra along with photo copy of deposit of Rs.50,000/- in cash in the SBI, Patna Secretariat in the name of Murari Ji Mishra (IFS). Even the wife of the petitioner had sent complaint in writing before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Forest Department on 10.04.1999 (Annexure-2) that Sri Murari Ji Mishra has tried to defalcate the Government amount of Rs.50,000/- and is threatening her husband for removing him from the job. Thereafter then Conservator of Forest, Ranchi instructed the Forest Working Plan Research Circle, Ranchi to direct the petitioner to deposit the Government amount in the Treasury and he also directed for initiating a preliminary enquiry against him and directed the petitioner to come with all relevant records in his office vide letter dated 13.04.1999 (i.e. Annexure-3). Thereafter vide letter no.836 dated 20.05.1999 (Annexure-4) the Conservator of Forest informed the petitioner that he has been authorized by the Government to enquire for threatening the petitioner. Even the Regional Conservator of Forest, Patna issued notice to Smt. Swarna Kumari, W/o Anand Kumar (i.e. the petitioner) to attend the enquiry in his office and the letter dated 25.06.1999 is the part of Annexure-4 series. 23. It further transpires that during pendency of the enquiry even Deputy Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment Department had directed Smt. Swarna Kumari, W/o Sri Anand Kumar, Range Officer vide letter dated 10.05.1999 (i.e. Annexure-6) to appear before his office in support of her allegation against Murari Ji Mishra, IFS and to produce the paper in support of her allegation. 24. 24. It transpires that one Sri Rabindra Kumar, Enquiry Officer, Conservator of Forest conducted an enquiry and submitted his Enquiry Report dated 20.11.2000 (i.e. Annexure-5) before the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Bihar, Patna in detail and after recording the statement of the petitioner-Anand Kumar his wife Swarna Kumari and Murari Ji Mishra then IFS, had held and concluded that Murari Ji Mishra, IFS had tried to get deposit Rs.50,000/- in his persona Bank Account by putting pressure upon Sri Anand Kumar, Range Forest Officer (i.e. the petitioner) and Murari Ji Mishra had tried to mislead the enquiry and has kept silence for long. 25. Thereafter an explanation was sought from said Murari Ji Mishra by the Government and vide letter no.2567 dated 08.08.2002, the Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, New Delhi, enquiry was made against Murari Ji Mishra, then IFS on the allegations made by Sri Anand Kumar, Range Forest Officer and his wife Smt. Swarna Kumari and which was enquired by then Conservator of Forest Patna Anchal, Patna and J.L. Srivastava, then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had submitted his Enquiry Report and found the allegation stand proved against Sri Mishra to the effect that he had tried to get deposited Rs.50,000/- in his Account through Sri Anand Kumar and he had issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to the Range Officer in the year 1998-1999 although there was no chance of completion of work and thus the allegation of defalcation is proved against Sri Mishra. 26. Thereafter, Government had decided to impose following punishments against said Sri Murari Ji Mishra:- (i) Punishment of "Censure" in the year 1999-2000 (ii) Prohibition of promotion for a period of three (03) years from the date of suitability/availability of promotion and requested the Chairman, UPSC to give his concurrence on the decision of the Government. 27. 26. Thereafter, Government had decided to impose following punishments against said Sri Murari Ji Mishra:- (i) Punishment of "Censure" in the year 1999-2000 (ii) Prohibition of promotion for a period of three (03) years from the date of suitability/availability of promotion and requested the Chairman, UPSC to give his concurrence on the decision of the Government. 27. It further transpires that even vide letter dated 08.08.2002 (Annexure-7) the Deputy Secretary to Government of Bihar had informed Sri Murari Ji Mishra, IFS that on the basis of allegations levelled against him by Sri Anand Kumar (i.e. the writ petitioner) and one Swarna Kumari and an enquiry was conducted by J.L. Srivastava then Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and who had found allegations true against him by submitting his Enquiry Report and Government had decided to impose punishment upon him i.e. Murari Ji Mishra, as follows:- (i) Punishment of "Censure" in the year 1999-2000 (ii) Prohibition of promotion for a period of three (03) years from the date of suitability/availability of promotion and requested the Chairman, UPSC to give his concurrence on the decision of the Government (iii) The concurrence of Union Public Service Commission is to be obtained for imposing this punishment (iv) Murari Ji Mishra was directed to file explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said letter (i.e. letter dated 24.08.2002). The said letter dated 24.08.2002 was the second show cause notice. 28. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter said Sri Murari Ji Mishra became hostile against him and he started taking retaliation for reporting so many allegations against the petitioner and reported so many allegations against the petitioner to his higher authorities intentionally to harass him. 29. It transpires that vide Office order No.141 dated 18.10.2002 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar, Patna, the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules who was posted as Range Forest Officer at Imamganj Region, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya and one Manoj Kumar Singh, DFO, Bhojpur Forest Division, Arra was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and one Ajit Kumar Singh, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Patna was appointed as the Presenting Officer and Article of Charges and evidence were enclosed with the said Office order dated 18.10.2002. It was directed that Enquiry Officer will submit Enquiry Report within one month. 30. It was directed that Enquiry Officer will submit Enquiry Report within one month. 30. It transpires that the following charges were levelled against the petitioner on 09.10.2002, as follows:- (i) Involvement in defalcation of Government money by showing forged payment of Rs.9,998.96 paise by showing false Thumb Impression on Muster Roll. (ii) Trying to defalcate Rs.1,25,000/- by withdrawing Government amount in conspiracy and keeping higher officials in dark and also for temporary defalcation, (iii) Temporarily defalcating the Government amount by making gross irregularity in accounting, (iv) For showing gross negligence and indiscipline in his duties and for showing indifference to the Government works, (v) By not getting the work done and unauthorisedly keeping himself with the received amount meant for other employees/officer and for obstruction and (vi) For not following the rules for the conduct of Government Servant, making indiscipline and for violating the decency in administrative works and correspondence. 31. The petitioner vide reply dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure-11) has pointed out, as follows:- (i) Reply to Charge No. (i):- The petitioner was given advance of Rs.10,000/- for doing Stock Mapping Work in Jamui Plantation Division and after completing the Stock Mapping Work, he had submitted entire report before the Divisional office and on the basis of which work plan was prepared. It has been mentioned at page 7, para-3 of said work plan book “I am thankful to all the field officers and office staff without whole help this plan could not have taken shape.” Thus, the work was done by the petitioner and the concerned Forester and its enclosure was also enclosed. It is further pointed out that in the above office order dated 18.10.2002, no work is mentioned in any diary. Thus, it is a matter of great surprise that as to how the forest advance of Rs.10,000/-, given for Stock Mapping Work has been defalcated from Jamui Plantation Division otherwise no book could have been published. (ii) Reply to Charge No.(ii):- Again no office order is mentioned with regard to the above charges. Nothing has been mentioned as per whose work the amount has been defalcated. As a matter of fact, Jamui Planation Division for the year 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 was sent for approval before the Government of India. (ii) Reply to Charge No.(ii):- Again no office order is mentioned with regard to the above charges. Nothing has been mentioned as per whose work the amount has been defalcated. As a matter of fact, Jamui Planation Division for the year 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 was sent for approval before the Government of India. (iii) Reply to Charge No.(iii):- Although the petitioner had sought direction for depositing Government amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in Government Treasury till 31.03.1999 but as Sri Murariji Mishra was putting pressure upon him for defalcating Rs.50,000/- and as such certain time was consumed in passing of challan from Treasury and depositing the amount in Bank on receipt of letter of Conservator of Forest, Work Plan Research Anchal. He had deposited the entire amount in the Treasury and in this connection the petitioner had earlier also informed the matter to the Government that the Government amount is preserved and hence the allegation of temporary defalcation is not proved. (iv) Reply to Charge No.(iv):- The delinquent has executed all the works at Jamui Forestation Division and even also executed the work plan of Rajgir Forest Region again after receipt of forest advance. He has protested against the illegal work of his superior officer, Murariji Mishra, hence he is sought to be implicated in the false charge. (v) (a) Reply to Charge No.(v):- There was no requisition of amount from the delinquent by the other employees/officers and no such direction is also issued and none had demanded any amount from the delinquent till 31.03.1999. (v) (b) Range Officer, Sri Braj Kishore had informed Enquiry Officer in writing that Sri Murariji Mihsra had demanded Government amount for his personal works and hence instead of giving cheque to him (Sri Murariji Mishra) on his requisition, the petitioner was handed over cheque and Murariji Mishra had put pressure upon him for defalcation. The Head Clerk had requisitioned Rs.10,000/- which was requisitioned by him but the Head Clerk suddenly demanded Rs.16,066.25 and prior to 31.03.1999 he had not demanded any such amount from him, hence it was informed Work Plan Officer that false charges are being framed upon the delinquent for defalcation at the instance of Murariji Mishra. Even despite demanding documents several times, the same had not been made available to him. Even despite demanding documents several times, the same had not been made available to him. (vi)(a) Reply to Charge No.(vi):- Wrong allegation is levelled against the petitioner for meeting with the Government without permission of Office Head of the department. The petitioner vide letter no.85 dated 10.11.1997 and letter no.150 dated 22.06.1999 had sought permission from Work Plan Officer. Thus, it is evident that the delinquent employee had submitted an application for seeking approval. (vi)(b) A detailed reply has been given for not violating the decorum and for not following the administrative work and correspondence. Thus, the petitioner has refuted the entire charges levelled against him by the Enquiry Officer. 32. It transpires that on receipt of said Office order dated 18.10.2002, the petitioner sent letter dated 14.12.2002 to Sri Ajit Kumar then Assistant Conservator of Forest-cum-Presenting Officer and requested to supply him the following documents, as follows:- (i) Diary of Sri Murari Ji Mishra (ii) Rules of the Department with regard to the Point No.12-13 and the relevant book (iii) Documents with regard to the items mentioned at Serial No.9, 10, 11. (iv) Copy of the work plan prepared by the petitioner at Jamui Forest Division, Rajgir Forest Division (v) Log book of the Departmental Vehicle as it was used by Murari Ji Mishra during inspection of the work (Karya Niyojan) (vi) Diary of the Assistant Forester Sri Niraj Kumar Sinha and Sri Bijendra Dutt for inspection of the work in the year 1998-2000 (vii) Certified photo copies of the original copy of the allegations of charges levelled against Forester (viii) It was also pointed out that the above documents are required for the petitioners to defend the charges levelled against him from the Presenting Officers because the Presenting Officers had pointed out regarding non-availability of several documents as it appears from the letter dated 14.12.2002 sent by the petitioner to the Presenting Officer. 33. It appears that despite sending letter dated 14.12.2002 and also some earlier letters to the Assistant Conservator of Forest- cum-Presenting Officer, the relevant documents were not furnished and not supplied to the petitioner. 34. It appears that vide letter dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure-11) the petitioner again filed representations for supplying those documents. 35. 33. It appears that despite sending letter dated 14.12.2002 and also some earlier letters to the Assistant Conservator of Forest- cum-Presenting Officer, the relevant documents were not furnished and not supplied to the petitioner. 34. It appears that vide letter dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure-11) the petitioner again filed representations for supplying those documents. 35. It reveals from the letter dated 13.12.2002 (i.e. Annexure-12) sent by Ajit Kumar Singh, Assistant Conservator of Forest-cum- Presenting Officer to the petitioner that the documents which were sought for by the petitioner are not available and letter dated 13.12.2002 read as follows:- “(i) "Point 1 to 6 and Point 9 to 11":- The Enquiry Reports raised in these points are not available with the Presenting Officer and it has no relevancy in defence and as such it is not possible to make capable these documents. (ii) |Point No.7":- Not possible to provide the said documents. (iii) "Point No.8":- Photo copy of charges levelled against Forester-Vijay Kumar and Forester-Manoj Kumar being enclosed but Enquiry Report of said charges is not available. (iv) "Point No.12-13":- Available in the Departmental and Legal Books. (v) "Point No.14":- There is no clarity of documents desired in this point. (vi) "Point No.15":- Muster Roll not available with regard to the Point No.15 and other relevant documents have been sent to the Accountant General, Ranchi and hence document cannot be given. (vii) "Point No.16":- Record of Karya Niyajana Pramandal not available and cannot be supplied. (viii) "Point No.17":- Demand is not clear and hence it is not possible to give copy. 36. It transpires that vide letter no.513 dated 29.01.2003, Dr. M.K. Sharma then PCCF, Bihar, Patna (i.e. Disciplinary Authority) had held the petitioner guilty on receipt of the Enquiry Report and issued second show cause notice to submit his reply within 14 days as to why a major punishment be not imposed upon him. 37. It appears that the petitioner had submitted his reply on 17.03.2004 denying entire allegations. 38. It transpires that vide Notification dated 07.01.2005 (Annexure-14) issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, the following punishment were imposed upon the petitioner:- (i) Punishment of Censure and (ii) Withholding three (03) increments with cumulative effect. 39. 37. It appears that the petitioner had submitted his reply on 17.03.2004 denying entire allegations. 38. It transpires that vide Notification dated 07.01.2005 (Annexure-14) issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, the following punishment were imposed upon the petitioner:- (i) Punishment of Censure and (ii) Withholding three (03) increments with cumulative effect. 39. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice here that ex-parte Enquiry Report was submitted against the petitioner and no enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner and even the copy of Enquiry Report was not served upon him. 40. Thereafter vide letter dated 18.01.2005 (i.e. Annexure-15) the petitioner had filed the Departmental Appeal before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Jharkhand Government, Ranchi, mainly on the following grounds:- (i) Failure to follow total procedure, (ii) No adequate opportunity for defence, (iii) Non-supply of essential documents, witnesses and non-examination and cross-examination of witnesses, (iv) No second show cause notice served upon him, (v) Bias and mala fide intention and (vi) Violation of principles of natural justice. 41. It further transpires that even the copy of the appellate order was not served upon the petitioner till the year 2009, thus the case of the petitioner has been delayed at each and every stage. 42. It transpires that even the petitioner had filed representation before the Deputy Secretary, then letter dated 27.11.2006 (i.e. Annexure-16) it was informed that the file has been closed. 43. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that an ex-parte department enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and even the Enquiry Report was not served upon the petitioner and a major punishment order has been passed against him. 44. It is further evident that the petitioner was serving in the State of Jharkhand since the year 2004 and the departmental proceeding was initiated by the PCCF i.e. by the State of Bihar. 45. Therefore, it is evident that the departmental proceeding conducted by the Controlling Officer and the Presenting Officer in the State of Bihar is illegal. Even the punishment order passed by the State of Jharkhand is illegal as the said punishment order was proposed by Sri M.K. Sharma, PCCF, Bihar, Patna to the State of Jharkhand and the said punishment order was passed by the State of Jharkhand which is also illegal. 46. Even the punishment order passed by the State of Jharkhand is illegal as the said punishment order was proposed by Sri M.K. Sharma, PCCF, Bihar, Patna to the State of Jharkhand and the said punishment order was passed by the State of Jharkhand which is also illegal. 46. Although from the counter affidavit dated 22.01.2010 filed by the Under Secretary, State of Jharkhand that altogether six charges had been framed against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. All the six charges were proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the said enquiry. After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry Report to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Patna, Bihar vide Memo No.37 dated 08.01.2003 and the Column-3 i.e. the analysis of defence party will show that the petitioner in the said enquiry sought to cross- examine three departmental Commissioner apart from various officials. However, it is evident that even the copy of Enquiry Report dated 08.01.2003 was not served upon the petitioner and several necessary documents were not supplied to the petitioner in support of his defence and enquiry was conducted hurriedly and in very haste manner against him. 47. It further transpires that although the department has tried to show that several letters dated 29.01.2003, 04.04.2003, 10.03.2004 and 24.04.2004 were issued to the petitioner for submitting his show cause before taking final decision but nothing has been brought on record to show that the said letters dated 29.01.2003, 04.04.2003, 10.03.2004 and 24.04.2004 were served upon the petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that the above letter were not served by the Department to the petitioner before passing the order of punishment dated 07.01.2005 (i.e. Annexure-14). 48. It transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand that the petitioner had joined State of Jharkhand in June, 2004 without informing the Government of Bihar and as such the Principal Chief Conservator, Bihar vide his Memo No.2896 dated 02.07.2004 requested the Secretary Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand to direct the petitioner to submit his show cause to the Principal Chief Conservator, Patna, Bihar so that final decision in connection with the aforesaid enquiry can be taken by the Principal Chief Conservator, Patna, Bihar. 49. 49. It further transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand that since the petitioner had joined the State of Jharkhand after allocation of cadre, the Principal Chief Conservator Patna, Bihar vide his Memo No.3281 dated 26.07.2004 transmitted the entire record of case to the Secretary, Forest and Environment, State of Jharkhand to take final decision in the matter and the photo copy of Memo no.3281 dated 26.07.2004 has been enclosed as Annexure-D. 50. It further transpires from the counter affidavit filed by the State of Jharkhand that the petitioner was not prejudiced because of non-supply of the documents. Therefore, it is evident that it is admitted fact that no documents were supplied to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer during the entire departmental proceeding and which is in complete violation of principles of natural justice. 51. It further transpires from the reply to the rejoinder filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 dated 16.08.2012 that vide Notification dated 29.06.2001 the Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar has changed the guide line for appointment, transfer, posting and departmental proceeding of Range Officer of Forest and delegated the power to Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar Patna. The proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated in the year 2002 and the photo copy of the Notification dated 29.06.2001 has been enclosed as Annexure-B. 52. Although the petitioner has contended that the appointing authority or superior authority can initiate a departmental proceeding against an employee in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 2054 and respondent authorities have created guideline that for a Class-II Gazetted Officer (Forest Range Officer) a departmental proceeding can be initiated by the Secretary and has enclosed the Notification dated 16.12.1974 by the Bihar Government Forest Department. However, in view of the above Notification dated 29.06.2001 as contained in Annexure-B to the reply dated 16.08.2012 filed by the Respondent No.2, it would appear that the Department has tried to defend its action by taking the stand that PCCF has also been authorized to initiate disciplinary proceeding or transfer posting of Forest Range Officer. 53. However, in view of the above Notification dated 29.06.2001 as contained in Annexure-B to the reply dated 16.08.2012 filed by the Respondent No.2, it would appear that the Department has tried to defend its action by taking the stand that PCCF has also been authorized to initiate disciplinary proceeding or transfer posting of Forest Range Officer. 53. It appears from the supplementary affidavit dated 25.10.2016 filed by the petitioner that Government of Bihar, Forest and Environment Department has delegated the disciplinary power to the Principal Chief Conservator of the Forest, Bihar by a resolution bearing its no.2222 on 09.07.2002 and photo copy of the resolution dated 09.07.2002 has been marked as Annexure-S.A-3. 54. It is pointed out that the Government of Bihar, Forest and Environment Department has no such power to change the disciplinary power to the subordinate to the Government as Principal Chief Conservator of the Forest, Bihar because the cadre of the Range Forest Officer is a notified Gazetted Officer and Notification has been published in Bihar Gazette in the year 1973. Hence the disciplinary authority is Government of the State but not to the subordinate to the Government. Photo copy of the resolution notified in Bihar Gazette on 22.02.1973 has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A-4. Thus, the Government of Bihar, Forest and Environment Department has acted beyond jurisdiction and disciplinary power cannot be delegated to the subordinate to the Government as Principal Chief Conservator of the Forest, Bihar as it is violation of the Article 309 of the Indian Constitution also violate the judgment passed by Division Bench Hon'ble Patna High Court 1988 BLJ 718 in Kamta Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar and Rajendra Prasad Singh Versus State of Bihar 55. It is evident that the petitioner has been appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission where officers of Gazetted rank are appointed on recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission, power of appointment ordinarily cannot vest in an authority subordinate to Government. 56. It is evident that the petitioner has been appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission where officers of Gazetted rank are appointed on recommendation of Bihar Public Service Commission, power of appointment ordinarily cannot vest in an authority subordinate to Government. 56. It is well settled Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be altered by an executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution and it is also well settled from the order of Division Bench of Patna High Court in case of N.K. Dwivedi versus State of Bihar in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1094 of 1990(R) and photo copy of order dated 11.12.1990 passed in C.W.J.C No.1094 of 1990(R) has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A-6. 57. It is evident from the counter affidavit that after lapse of two years of asking show cause by the Government of Bihar all of a sudden without constituted Prapatra "K" the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar had suo-moto started departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit the reply against allegations mainly in a matter of defalcation of Government money worth value Rs.10,000.00 and misappropriation of Rs.1,25,000.00. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the allegations in the matter of defalcation of Government money worth value Rs.10,000.00 the story behind is clear and the Forester namely Sri Bijay Kumar and Manoj Kumar submitted their requisition for due wage payment before the petitioner on 09.05.1998 and photo copy of the requisition dated 09.05.1998 has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A-9. 58. It is further pointed out by the petitioner that against the money Rs.Ten thousand (Rs.10,000/-) which has been allotted to the Foresters for completion of the working plan of Jamui Afforestation Division and the said work has been completed and working plan has been published and finally been approved by the Government of India. Then for revengeful action by the Divisional Forest Officers namely Sri Murariji Mishra sent all the vouchers i.e. Muster Rolls for finger print examination to a private institution M.R. Handwriting & Finger Print Examination Bureau. While there were no issue of any corner of any complaint against that due payment has not been made to the labourers. Photocopy of the preliminary examination report of Finger Print Reference No.258 dated 06.09.2009 has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A-16. 59. While there were no issue of any corner of any complaint against that due payment has not been made to the labourers. Photocopy of the preliminary examination report of Finger Print Reference No.258 dated 06.09.2009 has been enclosed as Annexure-S.A-16. 59. It also transpires from the supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.05.2024 that since the petitioner joined the State of Jharkhand after allocation of cadre, the Principal Chief Conservator, Patna, Bihar vide his Memo No.3281 dated 26.07.2004 transmitted the entire record of case to the Secretary Forest and Environment, State of Jharkhand to take final decision in the matter and photo copy of Memo No.3281 dated 26.07.2004 has been enclosed as Annexure-G. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 17.03.2004 to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment, Government of Bihar and again the letter No.1035 dated 10.03.2004, Patna and show cause further reply dated 14.08.2004 to the Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Government, Jharkhand. 60. It is evident that initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner for Rs.9,998.96 paise which was completely an imaginary charges as it reveals by the reply filed by the petitioner by which it is pointed out that Rs.10,000/- work was done in Jamui Division and for which Government of India had issued hand book and appreciation for the work done in Jamui Division of Forest Department. Thus, for imaginary charges this petitioner has been harassed. 61. However, the State of Jharkhand had punished the petitioner with the punishment of censure and withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect vide Notification No.63 dated 07.01.2005. Photo copy of the show cause reply dated 14.08.2004 and Notification dated 07.01.2005 has been enclosed as Annexure-H and Annexure-I. 62. From the counter affidavit dated 10.01.2017 filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 i.e. State of Jharkhand, it would appear that Respondent No.1 has taken the plea that the petitioner has not moved before this Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts in distorted manner. The Respondent No.1 has further stated that quashing of order dated 18.10.2001 which is typographical error and it should be read as 18.10.2002 and is barred by limitation and order dated 18.10.2001 (i.e. 18.10.2002) cannot be challenged before this Court as it is seriously time barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. 63. The Respondent No.1 has further stated that quashing of order dated 18.10.2001 which is typographical error and it should be read as 18.10.2002 and is barred by limitation and order dated 18.10.2001 (i.e. 18.10.2002) cannot be challenged before this Court as it is seriously time barred under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. 63. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is completely misconceived and challenging the initiation of departmental proceeding vide order dated 18.10.2002 by the PCCF, Bihar by the petitioner is not barred by limitation as the same is in continuation till the final punishment order dated 07.01.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner can always challenge the initiation of departmental proceeding if not issued by the competent authority as it goes to the root of the matter. 64. It is well settled that the authorities prescribed under the Act can only perform the necessary duty and merely showing delegation of power would not come to their jurisdiction if the same is in violation of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 65. It has also been pointed out that Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar is the appointing authority of the Range Officer of Forest Department and therefore, competent to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Thus, PCCF can initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has a chequered history of undisciplined behaviour and involvement in the misappropriation and embezzlement of Government funds provided to him for execution of departmental works. Four departmental proceedings have also been initiated against the writ petitioner for the charges of defalcation of Government money, unauthorized absence from the Government duty, lack of interest in Government work and gross misconduct and charges were proved in the said departmental enquiry and punishment orders were issued against him and they have furnished a chart showing the punishment. It has also been stated that two other departmental proceeding are also contemplated against the petitioner. 66. In the case of the writ petitioner, only the Hon'ble Governor could have ordered for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and as such the PCCF, Bihar was not authorized to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 67. It has also been stated that two other departmental proceeding are also contemplated against the petitioner. 66. In the case of the writ petitioner, only the Hon'ble Governor could have ordered for initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner and as such the PCCF, Bihar was not authorized to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner. 67. In the case of N.K. Dwivedi vs. State of Bihar and Others., then Division Bench (Ranchi) of Hon'ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No.1094 of 1990 (R) has held vide order dated 11.12.1990 that recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be altered by an executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution by placing reliance upon the judgment reported in AIR 1979 SC 1676 and also judgment reported in 1987 PLJR 1042 . 68. It has been held in the case of N.K. Dwivedi vs. State of Bihar and Others passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1094 of 1990 (R) on 11.12.1990 at para-3, 4, 5, 24, 27, 28, 29 to 33 as follows:- “ Para-3 :- The petitioner was appointed as Forest Guard in the year 1953 and was promoted to the post of Forester with effect from 15.12.1956. According to the petitioner he was promoted to the post of Forest Range Officer on 15.04.1983. The petitioner has contended that the said post is a gazette one and he was promoted in the said post by the Governor of Bihar by a notification dated 24.4.1983 as contained in Annexure-11 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 16.8.1990. Para-4 :- The petitioner has contended in this application that in view of Rule 49A of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, he should have been placed under suspension only by the authorities mentioned therein and in view of the fact that the petitioner was appointed by the Governor of Bihar, respondent no.2 had absolutely no jurisdiction to place the petitioner on suspension. Para-5 :- On the other hand, the respondents have contended that from a letter dated 9 th February, 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary of the State, it would appear that the disciplinary powers were delegated to the respondent no.2. Para-5 :- On the other hand, the respondents have contended that from a letter dated 9 th February, 1987 issued by the Joint Secretary of the State, it would appear that the disciplinary powers were delegated to the respondent no.2. From a perusal of the said letter, it further appears that by reason thereof, the resolution of the State bearing no.108 dated 22 nd February 1973 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application was sought to be amended. Para-24 :- Further from a letter dated 28.5.1990 as contained in Annexure-D to the said supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest was delegated with the disciplinary power only in terms of a notification dated 17.2.1988 and 24.2.1988 for the purpose of implementing 20 point programme. If the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest had already been delegated with the power of appointing authority, there was no occasion for the State to confer a specific power of the appointment and/or disciplinary authority to him for the purpose of implementation of 20 point programme only. It is now well settled that such delegation of power of the disciplinary authority to a person who is not an appointing authority only for the purpose of implementation of 20 point programme is vitiated in law. Para-27:- In terms of Rule 49A of the Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, an employee can be placed under suspension only by an authority who is the appointing authority or any authority superior to the appointing authority, or by the Governor. Para- 28:- The aforementioned Rules cannot be deemed to be the Rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Para-29 :- In that view of the matter, the power to place a person under suspension can be exercised only by the authorities named therein and, thus, in case of the petitioner evidently the respondents could not have exercised its purported power of placing him under suspension in terms of the purported order dated 9.2.1987 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit or otherwise. It is now well known that Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be altered by an executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1979 S.C. 1676. It is now well known that Recruitment Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be altered by an executive instruction issued under Article 162 of the Constitution. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1979 S.C. 1676. Para-30 :- Further in Kamta Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 1042 , a Division Bench of this Court held that by an executive order Rule 49A of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules cannot be amended in absence of any provisions therein relating to delegation of the functions by the authorities named therein. The power of the authorities named in Rule 49A of the aforementioned Rules can, therefore, be delegated only by reason of amending the Rules itself which, as noticed hereinbefore, was framed in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India. Para-31 :- In any view of the matter, the letter dt. 9.2.87 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit was not even notified and published in the official gazette. In this view of the matter, the said letter dt. 9.2.1987 cannot be said to have any force in law and must be held to be ultra vires Rules 49A of the aforementioned Appeal Rules. Para-32 :- In view of the discussions aforementioned, it is clear that respondent no.2 was not the appointing authority in respect of the petitioner and consequently he had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order dated 18.5.90 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. Para-33 :- In the result, this writ application is allowed and the order dated 18 th May, 1990 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application is quashed. It will, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order of suspension in accordance with law. However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.” 69. It will, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order of suspension in accordance with law. However, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.” 69. In the above case, it is evident that the delinquent employee- N.K. Dwivedi, Forest Range Officer was suspended by CCF, Ranchi which was challenged by the delinquent employee by filing C.W.J.C No.1094 of 1990 (R) and the Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna High had quashed the order of suspension passed by the CCF on the ground that the Hon'ble Governor is the appointing authority of the Range Officer and also in view of Rule 49A of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1930. 70. Therefore, it is evident that Forest Department even being aware of the fact that Range Officer cannot be suspended by the CCF or any Forest Officer as power cannot be delegated to CCF or any other person, the respondent authorities have initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner only to humiliate and to harass him. The above order dated 11.12.1990 passed in C.W.J.C No.1094 of 1990 (R) has not been challenged by the State authorities and as such the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench will be binding upon the authorities of both the State of Bihar as well as State of Jharkhand and hence the initiation of any departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of PCCF/CCF or any other authority as no power could be delegated to them and the act of the authorities of Forest Department amounts to contempt of Court. The respondents have failed to show that the above judgment passed in C.W.J.C No.1094 of 1990 (R) by Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court. 71. In the above case, it is evident that the PCCF was not the appointing authority of the petitioner rather Governor of Bihar was the appointing authority and as such initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner was held illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench). 72. It transpires that the department is chasing the petitioner like anything and there appears to be complete biasness on the part of the authorities. 73. 72. It transpires that the department is chasing the petitioner like anything and there appears to be complete biasness on the part of the authorities. 73. However, this Court refrains itself from giving any finding in view of the averments made in the counter affidavit dated 10.01.2017 filed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. the State of Jharkhand and also point raised by the Respondent No.1 that the petitioner has been punished in four departmental proceeding as may be challenged by the writ petitioner and two departmental proceedings are under contemplation because the same is not subject matter of this writ petition. 74. The Respondent No.1 cannot take advantage of said proceedings pending against the petitioner as the same has also been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing different writ petitions before the High Court of Jharkhand. 75. It further transpires from the supplementary rejoinder affidavit dated 14.05.2024 filed by the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Range Forest Officer by the Bihar Public Service Commission and superannuated on the same post without any promotions due to this major punishment order which is nothing but vindictive line of action by the Respondents having at no fault. It is stated that the Respondent No.5 who was controlling officer of the petitioner-in-person completely indulged up to neck in the helm affairs of corruption and the petitioner in-person filed complaint against him to the higher authorities and in retaliation the respondents repeatedly harassed to the petitioner. 76. It is further evident that ex-parte enquiry was conducted against the petitioner without supplying the documents and the evidence of witnesses and without allowing the petitioner to cross- examine the witnesses of the department, which is in complete violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 . 77. It has been held in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 at para- 61, 62 and 63 as follows:- “Para -61:- It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 at para- 61, 62 and 63 as follows:- “Para -61:- It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Government/management that the report is not evidence adduced during such inquiry envisaged under proviso to Article 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that the Evidence Act has no application to the inquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principles of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by "evidence" in the proviso to Article 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the inquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both. Para-62:- Shri P.P. Rao obviously realising this effect, contended that the enquiry officer being a delegate of the disciplinary authority is not bound by the delegatee's recommendations and it is not a material unless it is used by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the need for its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the inquiry. Therefore, the need for its supply does not arise and the principles of natural justice need not be extended to that stage as the officer/workman had opportunity at the inquiry. In support thereof he placed strong reliance on Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala, (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ; Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab, (1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637 ; Hira Nath Misra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, (1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260 ; Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, (1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555 ; Secretary, Central Board of Excise & Customs v. K.S. Mahalingam, (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374 and Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131. I am unable to agree with his contentions. Doubtless that the enquiry officer is a delegate of the disciplinary authority, he conducts the inquiry into the misconduct and submits his report, but his findings or conclusions on the proof of charges and his recommendations on the penalty would create formidable impressions almost to be believed and acceptable unless they are controverted vehemently by the delinquent officer. At this stage non-supply of the copy of the report to the delinquent would cause him grave prejudice. S.K. George case [ (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ] renders no assistance. It is only an inquiry against malpractice at an examination conducted by the University under executive instruction. Therein the students were given an opportunity of hearing and they were supplied with all the material, the foundation for the report. The observations of the Bench of two Judges with regard to the theory of two stages in the Inquiry under Article 311 also bears little importance for the foregoing consideration in this case. It is already seen that this Court held that the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into two. The reliance in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22 is also of no avail. It is already seen that this Court held that the inquiry from the stage of charge-sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be split into two. The reliance in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 380 : (1973) 3 SCR 22 is also of no avail. Therein it was pointed out that under Section 18-A of the I.D.R. Act there was no scope of enquiry at two stages and the omission to supply enquiry report, before taking the action, did not vitiate the ultimate decision taken. In Shadi Lal case [ (1973) 1 SCC 680 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 293 : (1973) 3 SCR 637 ] Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules did not provide for the supply of copy of the report of an inquiry conducted by the fact finding authority before inquiry. It was held that the delinquent officer was supplied with all the materials and was given opportunity to make representation and the same was considered. The report did not indicate anything in addition to what was already supplied to him. Under those circumstances it was held that the principles of natural justice cannot be put into an iron cast or a strait-jacket formula. Each case has to be considered and the principles applied in the light of the facts in each case. The effect of the violation of the principles of natural justice on the facts of the case on hand needs to be considered and visualised. The effect of Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio was considered by my brother Sawant, J. and it needs no reiteration. The reliance on S.K. George case [ (1969) 1 SCR 317 : AIR 1969 SC 198 ] in Tulsiram Patel [ (1985) 3 SCC 398 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985 Supp (2) SCR 131] ratio renders no assistance in the light of the above discussion. Since Mahalingam case [ (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] which was after the Forty-second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show-cause notice was dispensed with, regarding punishment and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Since Mahalingam case [ (1986) 3 SCC 35 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 374] which was after the Forty-second Amendment Act, the need to supply second show-cause notice was dispensed with, regarding punishment and therefore, that ratio renders no assistance to the case. Hira Nath Misra case [ (1973) 1 SCC 805 : AIR 1973 SC 1260 ] also is of no avail since the inquiry was conducted relating to misbehaviour with the girl students by the erring boys. The security of the girls was of paramount consideration and therefore, the disclosure of the names of the girl students given in the report or their evidence would jeopardise their safety and so was withheld. Accordingly this Court on the fact situation upheld the action of the Medical College. Satyavir Singh [ (1985) 4 SCC 252 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 1 : AIR 1986 SC 555 ] ratio also is of no assistance as the action was taken under proviso to Article 311(2) and Rule 199 of the CCA Rules. The inquiry into insubordination by police force was dispensed with as the offending acts of the police force would generate deleterious effect on the discipline of the service. Asthana case [ (1988) 3 SCC 600 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 869] was considered by my brother Sawant, J. in which the report was not supplied and it was upheld. It should, thus be concluded that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report is an integral part of the penultimate stage of the inquiry before the disciplinary authority considers the material and the report on the proof of the charge and the nature of the punishment to be imposed. Non-compliance is denial of reasonable opportunity, violating Article 311(2) and unfair, unjust and illegal procedure offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. Para-63:- The emerging effect of our holding that the delinquent is entitled to the supply of the copy of the report would generate yearning for hearing before deciding on proof of charge or penalty which Forty-second Amendment Act had advisedly avoided. So while interpreting Article 311(2) or relevant rule the court/tribunal should make no attempt to bring on the rail by back track the opportunity of hearing as was portended by the Gujarat High Court. The attempt must be nailed squarely. So while interpreting Article 311(2) or relevant rule the court/tribunal should make no attempt to bring on the rail by back track the opportunity of hearing as was portended by the Gujarat High Court. The attempt must be nailed squarely. Prior to the Forty-second Amendment Act the delinquent had no right of hearing before disciplinary authority either on proof of charge or penalty. So after Forty-second Amendment Act it would not be put on higher pedestal. The Gujarat High Court's decision is, therefore, not good law. However, the disciplinary authority has an objective duty and adjudicatory responsibility to consider and impose proper penalty consistent with the magnitude or the gravity of the misconduct. The statute or statutory rules gave graded power and authority to the disciplinary authority to impose either of the penalties enumerated in the relevant provisions. It is not necessarily the maximum or the minimum. Based on the facts, circumstances, the nature of imputation, the gravity of misconduct, the indelible effect or impact on the discipline or morale of the employees, the previous record or conduct of the delinquent and the severity to which the delinquent will be subjected to, may be some of the factors to be considered. They cannot be eulogised but could be visualised. Each case must be considered in the light of its own scenario. Therefore, a duty and responsibility has been cast on the disciplinary authority to weigh the pros and cons, consider the case and impose appropriate punishment. In a given case if the penalty was proved to be disproportionate or there is no case even to find the charges proved or the charges are based on no evidence, that would be for the court/the tribunal to consider on merits, not as court of appeal, but within its parameters of supervisory jurisdiction and to give appropriate relief. But this would not be a ground to extend hearing at the stage of consideration by the disciplinary authority either on proof of the charge or on imposition of the penalty. I respectfully agree with my brother Sawant, J. in other respects in the draft judgment proposed by him.” 78. But this would not be a ground to extend hearing at the stage of consideration by the disciplinary authority either on proof of the charge or on imposition of the penalty. I respectfully agree with my brother Sawant, J. in other respects in the draft judgment proposed by him.” 78. It is well settled that even in the regular proceeding the documents are required to be proved and witnesses are to be examined but in this case it appears that neither any witness was examined nor any document was marked as exhibit which violation of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 . 79. It has been held in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 at para 14, 15 and 23 as follows:- “Para-14:- Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. Para-15:- We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. Para-23 :- Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 80. It has been held in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 , Para 33 and 35 as follows :- “ Para 33:- In a case where the charge-sheet is accompanied with the statement of facts and the allegation may not be specific in charge-sheet but may be crystal clear from the statement of charges, in such a situation as both constitute the same document, it may not be held that as the charge was not specific, definite and clear, the enquiry stood vitiated. (Vide state of A.P. v. S.Sree Rama Rao.) Thus, where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served along with the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Para 35:- In view of the above, law can be summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges. No enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. Enquiry has to be conducted fairly, objectively and not subjectively. Finding should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor the same should be based on conjecture and surmises. There is a distinction in proof and suspicion. Every act or omission on the part of the delinquent cannot be a misconduct. The authority must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.” 81 . It has been held in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 at para 28, 30 and 33 as follows :- “ Para 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. 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. Para 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 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. Para 33:- As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play. The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.” 82 . It has been held in the case of Murari Bhagat Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2019 (4) JBCJ 94, Para 3 as follows:- “ Para 3:- Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 2016 it appears that, (a) The disciplinary authority is to frame or get framed definite and distinct article of charge containing the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour as also statement of allegation containing all relevant facts in support of article of charge as also a list of witnesses and a list of documents; (b) The disciplinary authority is to serve the article of charge, statement of allegation, etc. on the government servant and is to call for a written statement of defence thereto from him; (c) On receipt of the written statement of defense the disciplinary authority is to then consider the same and decide whether to hold enquiry into the article of charge or not and in case, on a consideration it decides to hold enquiry then it could be by itself or through an enquiry officer; and (d) Once the disciplinary authority after such consideration decides to hold an enquiry through an enquiry officer then it is to transmit the records to the enquiry officer including the article of charge, statement of allegation, written defence of the government servant. 15. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid rules it is crystal clear that in the instant case mandatory procedure has been violated as the disciplinary authority prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding vide resolution dated 04.08.2017, did not call upon the petitioner to submit his written defence statement to the article of charge so as to decide whether to proceed further by holding an enquiry or not. It can be confortably inferred that the disciplinary authority not calling before itself the written statement of defence of the petitioner to the article of charge and also appointing an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer simultaneously thereunder with direction to the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer, shows a clear predisposition and predetermination on the part of the disciplinary authority to hold enquiry against the petitioner without even waiting for his defence. The disciplinary authority acquiring jurisdiction to order for an enquiry to be held by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner, the issue of waiver or acquiescence on behalf of the petitioner in the above proceeding does not arise.” 83 . It has been held in the case of Sanat Kumar Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 2021 (2) JBCJ 485 (HC) at Para 9 and 10 as follows :- “ Para 9:- The Form is also prescribed of issuing major penalties. Annexure-3 speaks about the list of documents. Annexure-4 speaks about list of witnesses. On perusal of enquiry report, the Court finds that not a single witness has been examined for proving the charge against the petitioner. Annexure-3 speaks about the list of documents. Annexure-4 speaks about list of witnesses. On perusal of enquiry report, the Court finds that not a single witness has been examined for proving the charge against the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that even in departmental proceeding a document needs to be proved by way of adducing evidence and a major punishment has been passed against the petitioner and Statutory Rule i.e. Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930 has not been followed. Reference in this regard may be made in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570 particularly para 14 and 15 which is quoted hereinbelow:- “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. Para 10:- The petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case and particularly by way of paragraph nos. 30, 40 and 78 of the said judgment, it transpires that the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal case. A departmental proceeding was initiated on the basis of criminal case. The departmental proceeding has not been conducted in terms of the Rule prescribed under Rule 55 of Civil Services C.C. & A Rules, 1930. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Patna High Court in the case of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar (supra)” 84. Lastly it has been held in the case of Rajendra Ram Vs. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary & Ors. 2018 (2) PLJR 10 at paragraph 7 & 8 as follows :- “ Para-7:- ………………………………………….. …………………………………………………….. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly argued that in a departmental proceeding for serious misconduct oral evidence was necessary. However, on going through the enquiry report, of course it was not required for this Court to examine it while exercising power of judicial review, but on going through the report it is evident that none of the witnesses were examined from the Department side to prove any charges against the petitioner. However, on going through the enquiry report, of course it was not required for this Court to examine it while exercising power of judicial review, but on going through the report it is evident that none of the witnesses were examined from the Department side to prove any charges against the petitioner. The issue regarding non-examination of witnesses in a departmental proceeding for serious charge has already been set at rest by a Bench of this Court in Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar case (supra). In the said case one of the main reasons for interference with the punishment order was that no witness was examined to prove charge against the delinquent. It would be better to quote paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar case (supra)….. …………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… Para-8:- Similarly, this Court has already incorporated paragraph no.9 of Kumar Upendra Singh Parimar (supra) in this order. Nothing has been indicated as to what was the reason for non-examination of any witness to establish charge against the petitioner. In a departmental proceeding for serious charges particularly in view of Rule 55 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1930 it was mandatorily required to examine oral witness. In the present case in specific term the petitioner vide his letter no. 3855 dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure-“8” to the writ petition) had requested the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner to allow him to produce oral evidence besides submitting his supplementary written defence before the Departmental Enquiry Commissioner however in prove of establishing charge no witness was examined in the proceeding. Accordingly, in view of non-prove of any charges by any of the witnesses on behalf of the Department, there was no occasion for holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner by the Conducting Officer and on this score alone the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. ………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………..” 85. It is further evident that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the State of Bihar. However, the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner by the State of Jharkhand and which is also illegal in view of the judgment reported in State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1118 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhar). 86. However, the punishment order has been passed against the petitioner by the State of Jharkhand and which is also illegal in view of the judgment reported in State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1118 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhar). 86. It is evident that petitioner was no longer an employee of the State of Bihar and as such transferring the file by the Forest Officials i.e. PCCF, Bihar, Patna the PCCF, Jharkhand, Ranchi is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities concerned to transmit the file for imposing punishment against the writ petitioner. 87. It has been held in the case of State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1118 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhar) at para-11 and 12 as follows:- “Para -11:- Once, therefore, it is held that on and from the appointed day, the Successor State to the existing State would be the appointing authority in respect of a Government Servant and that the competent authority on and from that day, shall have all powers to pass any order in any respect against such person (including the order affecting his continuance in such post or office) permitting the existing State of Bihar, to either initiate disciplinary proceedings or issue suspension order against such person would be in violation of the express mandate contained in Section 74 of the Act and the proviso thereto. On and from the appointed day, the “existing State of Bihar” as defined in Section 2(e) ceased to exist. On and from the appointed day, the Successor States to the existing State of Bihar came into being. These successor States were the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. By a reading Section 74, therefore, what emerges is that the appointing authority in respect of a Government servant would be one of the two successor States, the State of Bihar or the State of Jharkhand and to determine as to which one of these two successor States is the appointing authority, the test is very, very simple. If the employee, as on the appointed day is serving in and posted at a territory forming part of the successor State of Bihar, the State of Bihar would be the appointing authority. If the employee, as on the appointed day is serving in and posted at a territory forming part of the successor State of Bihar, the State of Bihar would be the appointing authority. If the employee is posted in and serving at a territory forming part of the State of Jharkhand, the State of Jharkhand would be the appointing authority. It is only the competent authority in the Successor State which has the power and jurisdiction to initiate action and pass orders. This is irrespective of the accrual of cause of action at any point of time before the appointed day or the place where such cause of action occurred. To elucidate, we may say that if as on the appointed day, a person was serving in and posted at a place which formed part of the territory of the State of Jharkhand and if with respect to such a person cause of action had occurred, say in the year 1998 or 1999, in a place which, as on the appointed day, formed part of the State of Bihar, the State of Jharkhand alone shall be the competent authority and only such competent authority can pass order with respect to such a person. The State of Bihar with respect to such a person would have no jurisdiction to initiate action or pass an order. Para-12:- In such a situation and in such a background, where the State is carved out of an existing State, the cooperation between the two States becomes meaningful. If, therefore, the State of Bihar has, in its possession, any material against a Government servant who, by virtue of Section 74 of the Act, is now in the service of the State of Jharkhand and if the State of Bihar thinks that such material warrants initiation of an action against such a person, it is open to the State of Bihar to forward such material to the State of Jharkhand for such action as it considered appropriate by the State of Jharkhand. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Let it be very clearly understood that only role of the erstwhile State in such a situation is merely to pass on the information or the relevant material to the State of Jharkhand and leaving the rest for the State of Jharkhand to do. Similar would be the case for the State of Jharkhand if an employee is in a place in Bihar and if the State of Jharkhand has any material in its possession which may be required to be forward to the State of Bihar for appropriate action against such an employee. …………..”. 88. The above judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1118 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhar) was followed in W.P. (S) No.5273 of 2007 (Anand Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was allowed on 17.03.2011 by a Co-ordinate Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.C.S Rawat as then His Lordship was) of this Court. 89. The above judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar vs. Arvind Vijay Bilung and Anr. 2002 SCC Online Jhar 1118 : 2002 (1) JCR 401 (Jhar) was relied in W.P. (S) No.6621 of 2005 (Bhupendra Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which was disposed of vide order dated 06.11.2009 by the High Court (Hon'ble Justice D.G.R. Patnaik as then His Lordship was) as follows:- “ Para-10 :- Relying upon the ratio as decided in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (Supra) and applying the same to the facts of the present case and also considering the fact that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the concerned authorities in the State of Bihar after one year from the date of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar and even though, prior to the appointed day i.e. 15.11.2000, the petitioner was posted in the district of Chaibasa in the State of Jharkhand, I have no hesitation to hold that the initiation of the departmental proceeding by the concerned authorities of the State of Bihar was totally beyond jurisdiction and illegal. Para-11 :-The respondents have wanted to justify the initiation of the departmental inquiry by the State of Bihar on the basis of the purported clarification issued by the Central Government vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Para-11 :-The respondents have wanted to justify the initiation of the departmental inquiry by the State of Bihar on the basis of the purported clarification issued by the Central Government vide Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. The Central Government Circular seeks to clarify that in a case where no departmental inquiry has been initiated, before the appointed day, normally the State of Jharkhand would be competent to hold the departmental inquiry and finalize the same. However, in the cases of misconduct, relating to those territories which were part of the State of Bihar existing immediately before the appointed day, the inquiry may be conducted by the State of Bihar and papers transferred to the disciplinary authority in the State of Jharkhand to take a final decision. The clarification also seeks to explain that action on the above line could also be taken in respect of the vigilance inquiry, allegation, etc. in respect of officers provisionally ordered to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Jharkhand. The above purported clarification on the fact of it, are against the ratio decided by a Division Bench judgment in the case of Arvind Vijay Bilung (Supra) in which it has been declalred that it is only the competent authority in the successor State which has the power and jurisdiction to pass orders, irrespective of the accrual of cause of action at any point of time before the appointed day or place where cause of action occurred. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the interpretation of the statute as declared by the judgment of the court, cannot be altered by such clarification as relied upon by the respondents. The concerned authorities in the State of Jharkhand are deemed to be his appointing and disciplinary authority. 90. It is further evident that petitioner is a Gazetted Government Servant and as such no punishment order could have been passed without consulting the Commission i.e. Jharkhand Public Service Commission. 91. Rule 18 (6) and (7) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 read as follows:- “ 18. 90. It is further evident that petitioner is a Gazetted Government Servant and as such no punishment order could have been passed without consulting the Commission i.e. Jharkhand Public Service Commission. 91. Rule 18 (6) and (7) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 read as follows:- “ 18. Action on the inquiry report (6) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidences adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (xi) of Rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall be necessary to give the Government Servant an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (5) and (6) in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Commission shall be consulted and its advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government Servant.” 92. Thus, it is evident that as per Rule 18 (6) and (7) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 the Disciplinary Authority has to follow necessary procedure and the same has not been followed in this case and neither the petitioner was given opportunity to make representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed against him nor the Disciplinary Authority had consulted the Jharkhand Public Service Commission while passing the order of major penalty. 93. It is further evident that even no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner which is also in complete violation of the judgment reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and also in violation of Rule 18 (6) and (7) of the Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. 94. It has been held in the case of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 at para-14 and 17 as follows:- “ Para 14. In Ram Kishan case [ (1995) 6 SCC 157 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1357 : (1995) 31 ATC 475] disciplinary proceedings on two charges were initiated against Ram Kishan. The enquiry officer in his report found the first charge not proved and the second charge partly proved. In Ram Kishan case [ (1995) 6 SCC 157 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1357 : (1995) 31 ATC 475] disciplinary proceedings on two charges were initiated against Ram Kishan. The enquiry officer in his report found the first charge not proved and the second charge partly proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer and a show-cause was issued as to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved. While dealing with the contention that the disciplinary authority had not given any reason in the show-cause to disagree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer and that, therefore, the finding based on that show-cause notice was bad in law, a two-Judge Bench at p. 161 observed as follows: (SCC para 10) “The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer for the reasons given in the enquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the enquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show- cause on the basis of which the findings of the enquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show-cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect. Para 17:- These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [ AIR 1963 SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295 ] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority.” 95. It is evident that non-service of second show cause notice upon the petitioner is also illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The issuance of second show cause notice is mandatory. 96. It has been held in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderbad Vs. B. Karunakar, 1993 (4) SCC 727 at para- 27 and 28 as follows:- “Para -27:- It will thus be seen that where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employee's right to receive the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings. Para-28:- The position in law can also be looked at from a slightly different angle. Article 311(2) says that the employee shall be given a “reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges against him”. The findings on the charges given by a third person like the enquiry officer, particularly when they are not borne out by the evidence or are arrived at by overlooking the evidence or misconstruing it, could themselves constitute new unwarranted imputations. What is further, when the proviso to the said Article states that “where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed”, it in effect accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority (the enquiry officer being only his delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist him), the employee's reply to the enquiry officer's report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of such inquiry. The second stage follows the inquiry so carried out and it consists of the issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty and of considering the reply to the notice and deciding upon the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of opportunity of making representation on the report of the enquiry officer. The latter right was always there. What is dispensed with is the opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of opportunity of making representation on the report of the enquiry officer. The latter right was always there. But before the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution, the point of time at which it was to be exercised had stood deferred till the second stage viz., the stage of considering the penalty. Till that time, the conclusions that the disciplinary authority might have arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the employee and the penalty to be imposed were only tentative. All that has happened after the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the employee against the enquiry officer's report would be considered. Now, the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges.” 97. It is evident that only mistake committed by the petitioner, was to inform his higher authority against the misconduct of his superior officer i.e. then IFS, Murari Ji Mishra for pressurizing him to deposit Rs.50,000/- in his personal Bank Account and for which such incident had taken place. 98. However, the department has again filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.05.2024 and pointed out that petitioner was in service in the State of Bihar till May, 2004 whereas the punishment order was communicated vide letter dated 07.01.2005 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary to the Government. Thus, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and which was communicated vide letter dated 07.01.2005 (Annexure-14), is per se illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Patna High Court (then Ranchi Bench) and Jharkhand High Court. 99. It is well settled that the Appellate Authority has to pass speaking order while deciding the appeal. 100. 99. It is well settled that the Appellate Authority has to pass speaking order while deciding the appeal. 100. It is evident that in the case of the petitioner the petitioner had filed the applications on 12.01.2005 and 18.01.2005 for reviewing the order but the same was rejected without assigning any reason and was communicated vide Memo no.5592 dated 27.11.2006 by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand by which it has been informed that his application has been rejected and the file has been closed without assigning any reason. 101. It is well settled that the Appellate Authority or the Authority reviewing the order has to pass speaking order. 102. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the Appellate Authority for passing the non-speaking order in the case of Amar Nath Chowdhury vs. Braiithwaite and Co. Ltd and Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 290 , Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan vs. Ram Charan, (2006) 5 SCC 272 and Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan vs. Mehbub Alam Laskar, (2008) 2 SCC 479. 103. It is also well settled from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the reason is the soul of the order. 104. This Court is not remitting the matter to the authorities concerned for passing the fresh order in view of the fact that around nineteen (19) years have expired since the passing of the impugned order dated 07.01.2005 (Annexure-14) and the appellate order dated 27.11.2006 (Annexure-16). 105. Therefore, it is evident that in the present case, the authorities have committed grave illegality by chasing the petitioner from Bihar to Jharkhand while imposing punishment upon him which was beyond jurisdiction of the authorities of the State of Jharkhand and as such the order dated 07.01.2005 ( i.e. Annexure-14) passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government by which the petitioner has been punished for Censure and withholding of three (03) annual increments with cumulative effect and the appellate order 27.11.2006 (Annexure-16) are liable to be set aside. 106. In view of the discussion made above and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Patna High Court and also the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, the punishment order dated 07.01.2005 (i.e. Annexure-14) passed by the respondent authority and the appellate order 27.11.2006 (Annexure-16) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand was not communicated to the petitioner are set aside. 107. 107. Thus, this writ petition is allowed and the petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, benefit of 1 st ACP and 2 nd MACP and all other consequential benefits.