Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure-5) whereby the petitioner has been visited with several penalties. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 8.7.2000 (Annexure-8) whereby the appeal preferred against the order of the disciplinary authority has been dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that at the relevant time petitioner was working as Cashier in the Electric Supply Subdivision, Hathidah and a report in regard to defalcation of a sum of Rs. 16,000/- was lodged by the Assistant Electrical Engineer to the officer-in-chargo of the Hathidah police station and on that basis Hathidah P.S.Case No. 69 of 1986 was registered against the petitioner. By order dated 21.8.1986 (Annexure-3) he was put under suspension and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. Petitioner was served with the memo of charge which contained the following charges:

(1) Cheque no. BZ 324065/70 dated 24.3.83 was for Rs. 1015.65 which was shown as Rs. 11015.65 in the cash book as well as the pay-in-slip. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was thus defalcated.

(2) Cheque No. BZ855657/70 dated 31.3.83 was for Rs. 1,242.72 which was shown deposited as Rs, 4,242.72 in the Cash Book as well as in pay-in-slip. A sum of Rs. 3000/- was defalcated.

(3) Cheque no. CA/180L-741034 dated 31.3.83 was for Rs. 1,967.37 which was shown deposited as Rs. 4,967.37 in the cash Book as well as in pay-in-slip.

3. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 18.7.1995 and held the petitioner guilty of all the charges. In the meanwhile petitioner for the same charge was put on trial and by order dated 23.7.1992 passed in T.R.No. 80 of 1992/ G.R.No. 1050 of 1986, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Barh acquitted him of the charge. Petitioner was not given any opportunity or to show cause notice against the proposed punishment or the copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority but it inflicted the following punishment:

(i) The defalcated amount of Rs. 26,000/- (Twenty six thousand) only will be recovered from salary of Sri Sudama Prasad Dwivedi, Accounts Assistant.

(ii) Two of his annual increments are stopped with cumulative effect.

(iii) He is debarred from promotion in future.

(iv) He will not be allowed to handle cash in future.

(v) He is released from suspension with immediate effect. He will not be paid anything more than what has already been paid to him as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension but the period of suspension will be treated as the period spent on duty only for the purpose of pension and gratuity.

(vi) He is transferred and posted to Trans. Circle, Purnea on administrative ground with immediate effect.

(vii) Above punishment will be entered in his A.C.R. & Service Book.

4. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of punishment by filing a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as CWJC No. 4973 of 1999 (Sudama Prasad Dewedi V/s. State of Bihar and others) and this Court by order 29.3.2000 disposed of the said writ application with the following direction:

"If the petitioner files an appeal against the impugned order before the appropriate authority along with a copy of this order within a period of one month from today, the appellate authority will consider the said appeal without insisting on the period of limitation. But if the appeal is filed beyond the aforesaid period, in that case the petitioner has to explain the period of delay. It is expected that the appellate authority will pass a speaking order disposing of the petitioners appeal."

5. In the light of the order of this Court the disciplinary authority by the impugned order dated 8.7.2000 (Annexure-8) considered the appeal and dismissed the same.

6. Mr. D. K. Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the same charge petitioner was put on trial in a criminal case and he h