R.M.Prasad, J.

1. The petitioner, a retired A.D.M. Government of Bihar, has prayed for quashing of the inquiry report dated 15-11-1995 (Annexure 3) and also the consequential order, contained in letter No. 2/C 3-30185/92 P. dated 8th July, 1999 (Annexure 12), purported to have been issued in exercise of the power under Rule 139 (b), of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) deducting a sum of Rs. 1, 71, 296.75 from his retirement benefits to make good the alleged loss of Government revenue as also to fix his pension after deducting 10% for the alleged unsatisfactory service solely based on the report of the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiry, Bihar, Patna and, further, has sought for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay all post-retirement benefits, including full pension, full salary for the suspension period with effect from 26-10-1992 to 7-5-1993 and also to grant him promotion to the post of Joint Secretary, which was kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of the departmental inquiry, with full salary.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was posted as District Transport Officer, Purnea from 21-4-1986 to 6-3-1990. In August 1991, audit of the said office was done for the period 1979-80 to 1990-91 when the petitioner had already been relieved on 6-3-1990 for proceeding on transfer. It is alleged that the Transport Commissioner, Bihar, on the basis of the audit report No. 1053 of 1990-91, fixed entire responsibility on the petitioner only, although the objection raised in the audit report relates to the period of his predecessor and successor as well. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 26-10-1992, vide Memo No. 11721 of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (Annexure C to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2). A departmental proceeding was initiated against him, vide Memo No. 2633 dated 16th March, 1993 (Annexure D to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2). The said order of suspension was revoked, vide order dated 7th May, 1993 (Annexure 4 to the earlier writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11636 of 1997 filed on behalf of the petitioner), but the departmental proceeding was continued. The said departmental proceeding was conducted by the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries, Bihar, Patna, who submitted his report on 15th November, 1995 (Annexure 3). Thereafter, the petitioner retired as Additional District Magistrate on 31st August, 1996 and when he was not paid his retrial dues he filed the said earlier writ petition in this Court for direction to pay his pensionary dues. It the said petition, a counter-affidavit was filed in which it was stated that the departmental proceeding was initiated while the petitioner was in service and ultimately, he was found guilty of the charges and thus not entitled to the pensionary benefits.

3. From the order dated 8-12-1998 passed by this Court in the said earlier writ petition, contained in Annexure 1, it appears that the petitioner challenged the validity of the departmental proceeding on the ground that the copy of the inquiry report had not been erved upon him and, as such, any order passed by the disciplinary authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This Court, on perusal of the record produced, did not find that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer was served and thus found substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court directed the disciplinary authority to serve a copy of the inquiry report on the petitioner and the petitioner was given liberty to file his show cause before the disciplinary authority, who was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks. The writ application was, accordingly, disposed of.

4. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner was supplied with the photo copy of the inquiry report, vide letter dated 15th December, 199