IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2841 of 2005 Jainath Prasad S/o Late Ram Briksha Prasad, resident of Mohalla Jakkanpur, P.S. Jakkanpur, District East Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Deptt. Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-Chief –cum- Additional Secretary cum Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, Rural Engineering Organization, Bihar 5. The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Organization, Jehanabad, Bihar, Patna 6. The Joint Commissioner, Lekha Prasakha, General Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Patna 7. The District Magistrate, Patna 8. The Treasury Officer, Patna 9. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 10. Sri Chandrasekhar (Enquiry Officer), Patna, Technical Advisor of Special Officer (Communication), Road Construction Department, Bihar, Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna ----------- 05/ 24.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Accountant General and the State, who has produced records of the departmental proceeding in compliance of my order dated 17.2.2010. The Joint Secretary of the Department is also present. 2. It is submitted by the Joint Secretary that the departmental will look into the aspect of grant of sanction for payment of pension and other retiral dues to the petitioner contrary to the Office Order dated 13.3.2007, Annexure-10, whereunder petitioner was punished for failure to adjust Rs. 2,25,207/- given to him as advance and 25% of his pension amount was directed to be deducted as Bitumen amounting to Rs. 10,44,673/- was damaged on account of negligence of the petitioner. 3. Perusal of the order dated 13.3.2007, Annexure-10 2 indicates that the said order has been passed without the benefit of the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner, as according to the petitioner documents called for by him under representation dated 29.9.2005, Annexure-13, were never furnished to him. 4. The impugned order contained in Office order dated 13.3.2007, Annexure-10, has been passed without the benefit of the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner, the said order is set aside with direction to the Enquiry Officer, Sri Chandrasekhar, Respondent no.10 to examine the contents of the representation dated 29.9.2005, Annexure-13 and to consider the relevancy of the documents called for by the petitioner and if those documents are relevant, according to the Enquiry Officer, then copy of those documents be furnished by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner by 15.4.2010 and the petitioner should file his reply within another two weeks raising his defence on merit including the plea that the proceeding itself is barred under Rule 436 of the Pension Rules and fresh enquiry report be submitted by the Enquiry Officer within another four weeks, which should be considered by the Disciplinary Authority, namely, the Engineer-in-Chief who should first consider issue of second show cause notice and pass final order in the matter within 60 days of the receipt of the second show cause reply from the petitioner. In the meantime, petitioner be allowed 90% of his pension, but such payment shall be subject to the result of 3 the enquiry proceeding and with these observations and directions, this application is disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)