JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (a) For the quashing and setting aside the order passed vide Notification No. Nig/Sara-3-Karya-5-179/2009/5598(s) dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure-2) under the signature of Respondent No.3 whereby the respondent authorities upon remand of the matter by this Hon’ble Court for a decision afresh in the matter of imposition of punishment upon the petitioner has been pleased to inflict disproportionate and severe punishment upon the petitioner for withholding of 25% of pension in purported exercise of power under Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules which is unsustainable and barred by limitation of 3 years under the Rules. b) To direct the respondent authorities to immediately and forthwith release and pay the Gratuity and Leave Encashment amount along with statutory and penal rate of interest to the petitioner, who has superannuated w.e.f.31.07.2012. 2. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chandan Tiwari, learned A.C. to S.C.- V for the Respondent State and Mr. Rupesh Singh for the Respondent No.6. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the Respondent No.3, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No.981 of 2013 for quashing the order dated 10.01.2011, by which penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner debarring him from promotion for Three (03) years with further direction that nothing will be paid to him during his period of suspension except his suspension allowance etc. and a Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) vide Order dated 17.12.2013, had set aside the said order dated 10.01.2011 and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for taking a decision afresh in this matter. It is submitted that even before remand of the matter vide order dated 17.12.2013, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, the petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs.22,676/-(i.e. Annexure-17) as monthly pension vide Letter dated 25.06.2013 issued by the Office of the Accountant General. It is submitted that even before remand of the matter vide order dated 17.12.2013, passed by the Co- ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court, the petitioner was sanctioned a sum of Rs.22,676/-(i.e. Annexure-17) as monthly pension vide Letter dated 25.06.2013 issued by the Office of the Accountant General. However, vide Letter dated 03.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure 20), show-cause Notice was issued upon the petitioner as to why punishment of deduction of pension under Rule 139 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules be not inflicted. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed reply on 12.01.2016 to the said show-cause and requested the authorities that reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had also pointed out that one Ram Prasad Mahto, Case Clerk had concealed the Letter containing the interim order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007, although said Ram Prasad Mahto was custodian of the same and had requested for not taking action under Jharkhand Pension Rules, but vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2016, issued by the Joint Secretary, the Department had passed order for stoppage of 25% of the Pension of the writ petitioner on the basis of enquiry report of Conducting Officer/Enquiry Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner had not concealed deliberately the Interim Order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 and M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008. It is submitted that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner for making payment to the Contractor for entering into an agreement and he had also not committed Contempt of Court of any order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired Government Servant and he has already retired on 31.07.2012 and therefore, stoppage of 25% of pension with immediate effect would cause undue hardship to him and hence the impugned order dated 03.08.2016, passed by Respondent No.3 may be set aside. It is submitted that Pension already sanctioned to the petitioner on 25.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-17) cannot be withheld and the petitioner is entitled to full pension. Hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 4. It is submitted that Pension already sanctioned to the petitioner on 25.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-17) cannot be withheld and the petitioner is entitled to full pension. Hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned order is fit and proper and no interference is required. It is submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the Interim Order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 and order passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008. It is submitted that the petitioner was suspended vide Notification dated 21.08.2008 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide resolution dated 15.01.2009 (marked as Annexure A series). In the meantime, services of the petitioner was allotted to the Government of Jharkhand in terms of Bihar Reorganisation Act and the departmental proceeding initiated by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar was adopted vide departmental resolution Memo No. 3789 (S) dated 01.08.2009 (i.e. Annexure B). Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer had submitted his enquiry report by observing that Charge No.1 and Charge No.2 stand proved, whereas Charge No.3 is not proved. Then a second show-cause Notice was issued to the petitioner vide Letter dated 13.10.2010 (i.e. Annexure-C) and on receipt of reply from the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority decided to award the punishment of stoppage of Five annual increments with cumulative effect and other punishments were also awarded vide order dated 10.01.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013, which was allowed vide order dated 17.12.2013 (i.e. Annexure-D), by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as His Lordship then was). It is submitted that in the light of the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court, the Department had decided to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 139 (C) of Jharkhand Pension Rules for deducting 25% of pensionary amount vide letter dated 03.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure-E Series). On receipt of reply from the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, vide the impugned Order dated 30.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-F) had decided to award the punishment of withholding of 25% of pension vide notification dated 30.08.2016. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Respondent No.3. On receipt of reply from the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, vide the impugned Order dated 30.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-F) had decided to award the punishment of withholding of 25% of pension vide notification dated 30.08.2016. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Respondent No.3. It is further submitted that vide the departmental order/memo dated 22.03.2013, 93% Pension/Gratuity has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, however, Earned Leave Encashment was held up. It is submitted that the order dated 30.08.2016, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, under Rule 139 (C) of Jharkhand Pension Rules is not barred by the period of limitation of three years as show-cause notice dated 03.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure-20) has already been issued to the petitioner before the completion of three years from the date of sanction of the pension and pension of the petitioner has been sanctioned vide Letter dated 25.06.2013. Thus, the order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Respondent No.3 is proper and no interference is required from this Court and thus, this Writ Petition is devoid of merit and may accordingly be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and from going through the records of this writ petition as well as counter affidavit, it reveals that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer under Public Works Department, Government of Bihar in the year 1981 and he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 04.07.2003. 6. It appears that during the period of 2007-08, while the petitioner was posted as the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Dumra, Sitamarhi, the petitioner, vide letter dated 30.06.2007, had invited one Tender for strengthening and repairing of Sisaula Kataiya Link of Adauri Road from 11 k.m. to 12.24 k.m. and one Contractor, namely M/s Achal Kr. Singh had submitted the tender papers for allotment of the work in question. However, Tender process was challenged by another Contractor, namely Amrendra Kumar before the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 on the ground of preventing him from filing the Tender. 7. Singh had submitted the tender papers for allotment of the work in question. However, Tender process was challenged by another Contractor, namely Amrendra Kumar before the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 on the ground of preventing him from filing the Tender. 7. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Patna High Court, vide Order dated 21.11.2007 (i.e. Annexure-1) has passed the interim order as follows: “ All decisions in respect of the said tender taken would be subject to the final result of the case and in case tender has not been finalized no fresh order awarding the tender would be issued” 8. Then the learned Standing Counsel, vide his Memo dated 01.12.2007 had informed the State Authorities about the interim order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. 9. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer, vide letter dated 15.03.2008 (i.e. Anneuxre-2) approved the tender of the said Contractor for the work in question and directed the Executive Engineer to execute the agreement. 10. However, the petitioner has asserted and submitted that the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court could not be communicated to the petitioner and the respondents of said C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 and in the meanwhile the Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, vide Letter dated 21.02.2008 (i.e. Annexure 3) directed the Superintending Engineer, North Bihar Division, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Muzaffarpur to take further steps for finalization of tender for the road in question. 11. The petitioner has further asserted that he had to execute the agreement with the Contractor, namely Achal Kumar Singh within 10 days in view of the directives issued by the Superintending Engineer vide Letter dated 21.02.2008 (i.e. Annexure-3). However, he had no knowledge or information about the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. 12. It appears that thereafter, vide Notification dated 25.03.2008 (i.e. Annexure-4) the petitioner had been transferred from the post of Executive Engineer, Works Division, Sitamarhi and posted as Technical Advisor, National Highways, Planning and Investigation, Patna and the petitioner had submitted his joining and had taken over charge of the same with effect from 01.04.2008 (i.e. Annexure-4/1). 13. 12. It appears that thereafter, vide Notification dated 25.03.2008 (i.e. Annexure-4) the petitioner had been transferred from the post of Executive Engineer, Works Division, Sitamarhi and posted as Technical Advisor, National Highways, Planning and Investigation, Patna and the petitioner had submitted his joining and had taken over charge of the same with effect from 01.04.2008 (i.e. Annexure-4/1). 13. Thereafter, the said writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 was heard by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 10.04.2008 and the Hon’ble Patna High Court had taken serious view in the matter of violation of the interim order dated 21.11.2007 and had directed to initiate contempt proceeding against some of the respondents of the said writ petition, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 vide its Order dated 10.04.2008 (i.e. Annexure 5). 14. The Order dated 10.04.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 reads as follows:- “ Issue notice of contempt to respondent nos.3 and 4 as to why they should not be punished for willfully violating the interim order dated 21.11.2007 of this Court whereby on that day this Court had ordered: “ All decision in respect of the said tender taken would be subject to the final result of the case and in case tender has not yet been finalized no fresh order awarding the tender would be issued” Notices were issued to private respondent no.7 by registered post as well. This was so because the District Magistrate-cum-Collector had informed the authorities that the petitioner was unlawfully prevented from participating in the tender for which criminal case was also instituted. Respondent No.7 was a single contractor to file his tender and has been awarded the tender notwithstanding its challenge before this Court much prior to the said award. As per instruction of the State counsel the rates were approved in March,2008 and agreement executed in March, 2008 i.e. four months after the interim order by this Court and it is stated on behalf of the respondent that notwithstanding the order, the respondent was alone tendered, which was protested by the petitioner on the same very day, he has been allotted work and is doing work and is being paid. Prima facie, this is in clear violation of order of this Court. Prima facie, this is in clear violation of order of this Court. It may also be noticed that the notices were served on the concerned respondent after much delay and still for reasons obvious he has chosen not to appear. Put up this matter after four weeks retaining its position to enable the learned counsel for the State to file a comprehensive counter affidavit in the writ proceeding and to enable the respondents to respond to the contempt notice as issued. Learned counsel for the State accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the contempt matter, which should be listed along with this case separately registered. Let a copy of this order be given to leaned counsel for the State.” 15. Thereafter, the respondent authorities had cancelled the said agreement and vide notification dated 21.08.2008 (i.e. Annexure-6) had suspended the petitioner in contemplation of the departmental proceeding till further order under Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 with immediate effect till further order for not informing the higher officials about the interim order dated 21.11.2007, passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 (Amrendra Kr. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and which was communicated to him vide Standing Counsel No. X vide Letter dated 01.12.2007 and the Head Quarter of the petitioner was fixed in the Office of the Engineer – in – Chief -cum - Additional Commissioner – cum - Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 16. It further reveals that again vide Order dated 01.09.2008 (i.e. Annexure-7), passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 (Suo Motu contempt initiated against Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Dumra, Sitamarhi), the Hon’ble Patna High Court has observed and noticed that communication of the interim order dated 21.11.2007 was sent by the Office of the learned Advocate General through the Standing Counsel X to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary, P.W.D., Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Collector of the District by Fax on 01.12.2007 itself. Relevant part of the Order dated 01.09.2008, passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 is quoted as follows: “The grievance of the petitioner was that on the day when tender papers were to be filed for repair and construction of road known as Sasaula Kataiya Link Adauri Road, he was physically restrained by respondent no.7 from filing tender papers. Relevant part of the Order dated 01.09.2008, passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 is quoted as follows: “The grievance of the petitioner was that on the day when tender papers were to be filed for repair and construction of road known as Sasaula Kataiya Link Adauri Road, he was physically restrained by respondent no.7 from filing tender papers. He immediately complained about this to the Collector of the district to get an enquiry done in the matter. Pursuant whereto an FIR was lodged against respondent no.7. By this physical restrained exercised by respondent no.7, he was the only renderer left and it is against acceptance of his tender that the writ petition was filed. The writ petition was taken up for admission and on 21.11.2007 noticing the controversy, inter-alia, an interim order was passed- “All decisions in respect of the said tender taken would be subject to the final result of the case and in case tender has not yet been finalized, no fresh order awarding the tender would be issued.” Notices were also issued to respondent no.7 and State was directed to seek instruction and file a comprehensive counter affidavit. Notices were served on respondent no. 7 and were ultimately duly served on respondent no.7 on 3.2.2008. Writ petition was then taken up for admission on 10.4.2008. Respondent no.7, inspite of notice, did not appear, nor any counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State but learned counsel for the State, on instruction, informed the Court that pursuant to tender submitted by respondent no.7, so far as interim order was passed by this Court, rates were negotiated and finalized with respondent no.7 in March, 2008 and agreement executed in his favour in March, 2008 and he has already started working the contract notwithstanding interim order dated 21.11.2007. On this by order dated 10.4.2008, this Court suo motu initiated contempt proceeding against the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer and accordingly the present proceedings have been registered being MJC No. 975 of 2008.” It has also been further observed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court that the Superintending Engineer cannot shirk from his responsibility and put it on the shoulder of the Executive Engineer. However, it reveals further from the pleadings made in Para 21 of the writ petition that the Hon’ble Patna High Court had dropped the contempt proceeding vide order dated 25.11.2008 with a direction to the State to inquire into the matter. 17. Although, the copy of the said order dated 25.11.2008, passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, either in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 or M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 has not been brought on record, however, the petitioner has not challenged the contentions of the State. 18. Thereafter, Memo of Charges, vide Prapatra ‘Ka’, by the Memo No. 419 dated 17.01.2009 (i.e. Annexure 8), Three (03) charges had been framed against the petitioner, which were as follows:- “(i) For suppressing the letter dated 01.12.2007 of the Learned Standing Counsel X mentioning about the interim order dated 21.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 by the Hon’ble High Court from superior authorities and for executing the agreement with the contractor in contravention to the directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court (ii) For suppressing the Letter dated 01.12.2007 of the Learned Standing Counsel X since 07.12.2007 till 31.03.2008 without taking necessary actions. (iii) For not giving the charge to his successor upon being transferred.” 19. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated 27.04.2009 (i.e. Annexure-9) and had denied the charges levelled against him. 20. In the meantime, the services of the petitioner had been allotted to the State of Jharkhand in terms of Bihar Re-Organization Act, where he is said to have submitted his joining on 22.05.2009. 21. Thereafter, the Deputy Secretary (Vigilance), Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna, vide his letter dated 6241(S) dated 11.06.2009, informed the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi about the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and had transmitted the documents and records for further action. 22. Thus, vide resolution of the Govt. contained in Memo no. 3789 dated 01.08.2009 (i.e. Annexure-10), the Govt. of Jharkhand decided to proceed in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and accordingly, Chief Engineer, Traffic, Road Construction Department was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Section Officer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna was appointed as the Presenting Officer. 23. The petitioner, vide his letter no. contained in Memo no. 3789 dated 01.08.2009 (i.e. Annexure-10), the Govt. of Jharkhand decided to proceed in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and accordingly, Chief Engineer, Traffic, Road Construction Department was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the Section Officer, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna was appointed as the Presenting Officer. 23. The petitioner, vide his letter no. 04 dated 27.08.2009 (i.e. Annexure-11), had requested the newly appointed Enquiry Officer, i.e. the Chief Engineer, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi for the entire file wherein the letter no, 11041 dated 01.12.2007 issued by the learned Standing Counsel X has been annexed for proper and just appreciation of the matter. 24. It has been asserted that the petitioner had not been handed over the relevant documents as desired, however, he has submitted his reply before the new Enquiry Officer on 08.09.2009 (i.e. Annexure-12), denying all three charges in detail. 25. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated 20.03.2010 (i.e. Annexure-13) held the petitioner guilty of Charge No.(i) and Charge No.(ii), whereas Charge No.(iii) was dropped. 26. It transpires that the Disciplinary Authority, vide Letter dated 13.10.2010 (i.e. Annexure-14) had issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner and directed him to file his reply. 27. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his reply vide Letter dated 29.10.2010 (i.e. Annexure-15) and denied the allegations and pointed out that relevant documents, for defending his case, were not supplied to him and no subsistence allowance was paid to him during the period of suspension. 28. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, vide Notification dated 10.01.2011 (i.e Annexure-16) had passed the penalty order by imposing the punishment of stoppage of Five increments with cumulative effect and for not promoting him for a period of three years and for posting him at a non-work place for Four years and for payment of subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension. 29. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred departmental appeal vide letter dated 05.07.2011 by challenging the order dated 10.01.2011 (i.e. Annexure 16), which remained pending. 30. It transpires that in the meantime, the petitioner retired with effect from 31.07.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 31. Before his superannuation, the petitioner had submitted the pension papers before the competent authority for payment of his pension. 30. It transpires that in the meantime, the petitioner retired with effect from 31.07.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. 31. Before his superannuation, the petitioner had submitted the pension papers before the competent authority for payment of his pension. Thereafter, the pension paper of the petitioner was processed and forwarded before the Office of the Accountant General and vide Letter dated 25.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure-17) issued by the Office of the Asstt. Accountant General/Senior Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer, vide Letter dated 25.06.2013 (i.e. Annexure 17) the monthly pension of the petitioner was fixed at the rate of Rs.22,676/- per month from 01.08.2012. 32. However, his Gratuity and Leave Encashment was not paid. 33. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 before the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi by challenging the order dated 10.01.2011 (i.e. Annexure-16) and vide Order dated 17.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 the penalty order dated 10.01.2011 was set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as His Lordship then was) of this Court and the matter was remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority for taking the decision afresh in the matter, on the ground and in view of the fact that the penalty was imposed under Rule 49 of the Civil services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and the Disciplinary Authority has no jurisdiction to impose said penalty vide letter dated 10.01.2011 as the penalty imposed on the delinquent employee is not mentioned in Rule 49 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 34. However, the above order dated 17.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 reveals that it was not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as His Lordship then was) that the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 55 of Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, as it reveals from Resolution dated 01.8.2009, passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi (i.e. Annexure-10). 35. It further transpires that the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, vide order dated 17.12.2013, passed in W.P.(S) 981 of 2013, remitted back the matter to the disciplinary authority for taking the decision afresh in the matter. 36. 35. It further transpires that the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand, vide order dated 17.12.2013, passed in W.P.(S) 981 of 2013, remitted back the matter to the disciplinary authority for taking the decision afresh in the matter. 36. However, It also appears that the pension payment order dated 25.06.2013 issued by the Office of the Accountant General had not been brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as then His Lordship was) of this Court. 37. After remand of the matter in the light of order dated 17.12.2013, passed in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013, the petitioner filed representations before the State authorities for decision in the matter and also for payment of his Gratuity and Leave Encashment and had also pointed out that only 90% pension has been sanctioned by filing representation on 18.02.2014 and 19.05.2015, i.e. Annexure 19 and Annexure 19/1 respectively. 38. It transpires that vide letter dated 03.12.2015 (i.e. Annexure-20), the respondent authorities have issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under Rule 139 (C) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules for deducting 25% of his pension. 39. Thereafter, vide letter dated 12.01.2016, i.e. Annexure-21, the petitioner submitted his reply to the Respondent No.3 and has taken the defence that one Shri Ram Prasad Mahto was the Case Clerk of said C.W.J.C.No.8737 of 2007, who had concealed the order of the High Court in postal stage and the said docket was not brought to his notice. 40. However, vide the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-22), the State Government decided to deduct 25% pension of the petitioner under Rule 139 (C) of Jharkhand Pension Rules and which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 30.08.2016 (i.e. Annexure-22) by the Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, i.e. Respondent No. 3 and which is under challenge before this Court. 41. Although, much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 has been passed after expiry of three years from the date of fixation of pension of the petitioner, however, this Court finds that this is one of those cases in which there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner, in connivance with then Superintending Engineer, Bihar to violate the interim order dated 21.11.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.No. 8737 of 2007. It reveals from the order dated 21.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court that there was specific report of the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi addressed to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna that one Amrendra Kumar (i.e. the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007), was prevented from filing his Tender by a contesting candidate and for which a criminal case was also instituted and the District Magistrate had recommended for cancellation of the tender which would give fair chance to participate and to protect the State revenue as well. However, the petitioner as well as the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Muzaffarpur got executed the agreement along with said Contractor, namely Achal Kumar Singh in the garb of letter dated 21.02.2008 (issued by the Engineer-in-Chief) and Letter dated 08.03.2008 (issued by the Chief Engineer). 42. It also reveals that the petitioner, who was performing his duty as the Executive Engineer of the Said Road Division, Sitamarhi, had neither informed the Engineer-in-Chief nor the Chief Engineer nor even the Principal Secretary about the interim order dated 21.11.2007 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 8737 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the garb of not providing him the letter by the Case Clerk-Ram Prasad Mahto (Alleged custodian of the file) till 30.03.2008 and he got executed the agreement with the Contractor Achal Kumar Singh though he claims himself to be innocent and not aware of the order, which is clearly wrong and incorrect because the Hon’ble Patna High Court, vide Order dated 01.09.2008 passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 had observed that the communication was sent by the office of the learned Advocate General through the Standing Counsel-X to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary, PWD, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Collector of the district by FAX on01.12.2007 itself. 43. Therefore, the Hon’ble Patna High Court initiated suo-motu contempt proceeding against the petitioner Wakil Singh as well as the then Superintending Engineer, vide Order dated 10.04.2008, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007, which gave rise to M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008. 44. 43. Therefore, the Hon’ble Patna High Court initiated suo-motu contempt proceeding against the petitioner Wakil Singh as well as the then Superintending Engineer, vide Order dated 10.04.2008, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007, which gave rise to M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008. 44. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court vide order dated 01.09.2008 passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 as follows: - “ The Superintending Engineer in his show cause has stated that it was one Wakil Singh, the then Executive Engineer, to whom the State counsel had communicated the order of this Court but he did not choose to bring it to the notice of the authority for which he has been asked to show cause. Inn his defence, Superintending Engineer states that he was only executing the direction received from the Engineer-in- Chief dated 21.2.2008 and as such did not violate the interim order of this Court much less intention. The second show cause is filed by the Executive Engineer, Sri Yogendra Pandey, who states that he had taken over from Mr. Wakil Singh, the earlier Executive Engineer on 1.4.2008 by when the agreement had already been executed and as such on coming to know of the interim order, he had cancelled the agreement and all further work. This stand appears strange to this Court and as such this Court directed the learned Standing Committee to file an affidavit to this Office as to who all were communicated the interim order of this Court and when Today, an affidavit pursuant to the said order has been filed in which it has been categorically stated that the communication was sent by the office of the learned Advocate General through the Standing Counsel -X to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary, PWD Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and the Collector of the district by FAX on 1.12.2007 itself. Thus, prima facie, the stand of the Superintending Engineer, is deliberately false that he was ignorant about the order of this Court and that the Executive Engineer was the true concerned person. The order that was communicated by the Advocate General to the Executive Engineer was the same, which was communicated to the Superintending Engineer. Both were equally bound. Therefore, prima facie, Superintending Engineer cannot shirk his responsibility put on the shoulder of the Executive Engineer. The order that was communicated by the Advocate General to the Executive Engineer was the same, which was communicated to the Superintending Engineer. Both were equally bound. Therefore, prima facie, Superintending Engineer cannot shirk his responsibility put on the shoulder of the Executive Engineer. If the said Executive Engineer was guilty in any manner, the Superintending Engineer was far more guilty insasmuch as when he received order of the Chief Engineer, he should have immediately responded to the Chief Engineer itself pointing out about the interim order instead he issued direction to the Executive Engineer giving time frame to get the agreement executed. This is after two months having received the interim order of this Court. Mr. Wakil Singh though not a party to the present proceeding but has appeared and filed an intervention petition stating that he has been made scapegoat and departmental proceeding initiated against him inspite of this incident. Prima-facie, in view of this, if he has to proceed against in the manner in which department seeks to proceed, they should first proceed against the Superintending Engineer. He has greater responsibility in the matter who, as noticed above, has deliberately concealed the same in his show cause. He has also received same communication from the office of the Advocate General similar to that of the Executive Engineer but did not choose to bring it to the notice of the Engineer-in-Chief rather issued direction to the Executive Engineer to execute the agreement.” 45. Thus, from the stand taken by the petitioner in his reply, to the show-cause, filed on 12.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure-21), it reveals that he has thrown entire responsibility upon his Clerk Ram Prasad Mahto (who was termed as the Case Clerk by the petitioner) for not producing the docket of the records of the case relating to order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition before this Court the petitioner has failed to show any action or any correspondence made by him against the alleged Case Clerk Ram Prasad Mahto. 46. Even at the time of filing of the writ petition before this Court the petitioner has failed to show any action or any correspondence made by him against the alleged Case Clerk Ram Prasad Mahto. 46. The order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench (Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as His Lordship then was ) of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 does not speak about the orders passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 and M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 and after passing of the order dated 17.12.2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No.981 of 2013, it was open to the Department to pass suitable order in accordance with law as it is a case of a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to violate the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court and for taking wrong stand. 47. Even the Co-ordinate Bench had not quashed the order dated 10.01.2011 in its entirety rather remitted the matter back to the authority concerned to take a decision afresh despite the fact that the petitioner had already retired on 31.07.2012. Therefore, it was open to the Department to pass suitable order by taking into the facts and circumstances of the case. 48. The specific stand of the petitioner is that he has already retired on 31.07.2012, whereas the punishment was imposed upon him on 30.08.2016, i.e. after expiry of three years. In normal circumstances, it would have been possible to consider this plea on the question of law as well as limitation, but this is a case in which the Department has initiated proceeding against the petitioner under Section 139 (C) of Jharkhand Pension Rules in the light of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 after dropping the penalty order dated 10.01.2011. Therefore, the show-cause Notice dated 03.12.2015 (i.e.Annexure-20) cannot be time barred. 49. For the sake of brevity, Rule 139 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules is quoted as follows: “139 (a) The full pension admissible under the rules is not to be given as a matter of course, of unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. (c) The State Government reserve to themselves the power of revising an order relating to pension passed by subordinate authorities under their control, if they are satisfied that the service of the pensioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or that there was proof of grave misconduct on his part while in service. No such power shall however, be exercised without giving the pensioner concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to his pension, nor any such power shall be exercised after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed.” 50. Rule 139 (C) empowers the State Government to revise the order relating to pension of the persons if the authorities of the Government is satisfied that the services of the petitioner was not thoroughly satisfactory or there is a proof of grave misconduct on his part during his service. However, the power has to be exercised after giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to pension and powers has to be exercised not after the expiry of three years from the date of the order sanctioning the pension was first passed. 51. This Court is of the view that if the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 is set aside by this court on the ground of technicalities, it will give premium to a wrong doer for committing a wrong act and letting him off scot-free without any punishment on technical ground by efflux of time and would create a precedent for committing the wrong and getting away scot-free without any punishment. 52. It is evident that the petitioner is not so innocent as he pretends to be because his conduct demonstrates that he is guilty of committing wrong by ignoring the order of not only the High Court but also suppressing the fact of recommendation of cancelling/terminating the tender, which was recommended by the District Magistrate and which was addressed to the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. Merely in the name of innocence for having joined at Ranchi on 22.05.2009, the petitioner cannot escape from his illegal and wrong acts and liabilities by shifting his entire burden and responsibilities upon the Clerk Ram Prasad Mahto, against whom he had taken no action despite having notice of the fact that the interim order dated 21.11.2007, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court was served in his Office on 01.12.2007 as it reveals from the order dated 01.09.2008, passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008, by which the Hon’ble Patna High Court has taken a strong view to initiate action against the erring persons, i.e. the Superintending Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer, i.e. the petitioner. Even due to the acts of the petitioner the credibility and work system of the Public Works Department was undermined and brought into cloud and had raised question marks. 53. No doubt there is delay even on the part of the authority concerned for issuing the show-cause notice dated 03.12.2015, but this is a case of exceptional circumstances and violation of judicial order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court on 21.11.2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 on behalf of the petitioner and thus, the order passed by the Constitutional Court has been deliberately violated by the petitioner and as such the period of three years has to be given wider meaning. 54. Even while filing representation dated 18.02.2014 (i.e. Annexure-19) and representation dated 19.05.2015 (i.e. Annexure-19/1), addressed to the Deputy Secretary and Principal Secretary respectively of the Road Construction Department, the petitioner has neither whispered about the orders dated 21.11.2007 and 10.04.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8737 of 2007 and the order dated 01.09.2008, passed in M.J.C. No. 975 of 2008 and also the order dated 17.12.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 981 of 2013 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, as His Lordship then was) and this amounts to suppression of facts in the representations dated 18.02.2014 (i.e. Annexure-19) and 19.05.2015 (i.e. Annexure-19/1) by the petitioner. 55. Thus, even the petitioner has not approached the State authorities with clean hands, rather he has also suppressed the relevant facts before the authorities concerned. 56. 55. Thus, even the petitioner has not approached the State authorities with clean hands, rather he has also suppressed the relevant facts before the authorities concerned. 56. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrongs and omissions committed by him indirectly which he could not take directly. 57. It has been held in the case of Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 at Para 27, 28, 29 and 30 as follows:- Para 27:- On appeal, Lord Cozens-Hardy, M.R. and Warrington, L.J. approved the view taken by the Divisional Court. Scrutton, L.J. who agreed that the appeal should be dismissed observed: (Kensington case [(1917) 1 KB 486 (CA)], KB p. 514) “… and it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts—facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it — the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” Para 28:- The abovenoted rules have been applied by this Court in a large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands — Hari Narain v. Badri Das [ AIR 1963 SC 1558 ], Welcom Hotel v. State of A.P. [(1983) 4 SCC 575 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 872], G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka [ (1991) 3 SCC 261 ], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ], A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of Karnataka [ (1991) 3 SCC 261 ], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ], A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [ (2007) 4 SCC 221 ], Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI [ (2007) 8 SCC 449 ], Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India [ (2008) 2 SCC 326 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 558], K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [ (2008) 12 SCC 481 ], G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel [ (2009) 3 SCC 141 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 780] and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324] Para 29:- In the last mentioned judgment, the Court lamented on the increase in the number of cases in which the parties have tried to misuse the process of court by making false and/or misleading statements or by suppressing the relevant facts or by trying to mislead the court in passing order in their favour and observed: (Dalip Singh case [ (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324], SCC pp. 116-17, paras 1-2) “1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. ‘satya’ (truth) and ‘ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.” (emphasis supplied) Para 30:- In our view, the appellants are not entitled to any relief because despite strong indictment by this Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India [1993 Supp (2) SCC 20], they deliberately refrained from mentioning details of the cases instituted by them in respect of the land situated at Sadhora Khurd and rejection of their claim for exemption under Clause (d) of the Notification dated 13-11-1959 by the High Court and this Court. 58. It has been held in the case of Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114 at Paragraph 10 as follows:- “ Para 10:- In K.C. Sharma v. SAIL the Court held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary ad it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. It there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G.Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel.” 59. It has been held in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. Versus Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. And Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 at Paragraph 5 as follows:- “ Para 5: - The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. Versus Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. And Others reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 at Paragraph 5 as follows:- “ Para 5: - The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observation which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes and engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank- loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 60. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, this Court upheld the view of the Department for passing the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 by the Respondent No.3 to the extent that after thorough consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner it was found that the petitioner has deliberately violated the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, which is a grave misconduct and as such he cannot be exonerated from the charges. Thus, the Department has again held him guilty for the charges levelled against him during the Disciplinary Proceeding by the Authority concerned. 61. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and accordingly W.P.(S) No. 6599 of 2016 is dismissed.