In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule, and the burden of proof that the employee remained unemployed would be on the employer.

1. Petitioner in the present writ application seeks quashing of the letter dated 24.4.2012 ( Annexure-1), whereby, his claim for payment of back wages for the period 31.7.2007 to 30.12.2009, during which he remained out of service because of an order of compulsory retirement which was subsequently set aside by the appellate authority; has been rejected. Petitioner also seeks direction to the respondents to pay to him salary for 22 days which was wrongly withheld by the respondents, without any authority and procedure.

2. Facts in the present writ applications are not in dispute at all.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Officer (Mechanical) in the year 1974 after following the due process of selection in Patna Industrial Area Development Authority. On creation of North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur ( hereinafter referred to as the “NBIADA”) the Industrial Area, Barauni was transferred from Patna Industrial Area Development Authority to NBIADA and the petitioners service was accordingly transferred to NBIADA in the year 1975. The petitioner was duly promoted to the post of Deputy Development Officer on the recommendation of Bureau of Public Enterprises, which promotion was confirmed on 17.1.1984. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Development Officer with effect from 15.6.1995. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the three Industrial Area Development Authorities which fell in remaining Bihar after creation of State of Jharkhand were merged in the year 2003 to form BIADA (Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority) and the petitioner, thus, became employees of BIADA. The petitioner was thereafter, transferred to the post of Development Officer, Regional office, Darbhanga vide memo no. 1152 dated 12.5.2007 with a direction to perform the additional work of Executive Director.

4. It is the petitioners case that without any rhyme and reason and without following any procedure, 22 days petitioners salary was directed to be deducted by a memo issued on 28.6.2007. Within a fortnight thereafter, without following any procedure the Managing Director, BIADA vide an order dated 12.7.2007 compulsory retiring the petitioner from service on 31.7.2007. This fact is not in dispute that before passing the order dated 31.7.2007, no proceeding was initiated nor any departmental enquiry conducted. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.7.2007 the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 13038 of 2007. The writ petition was, however, disposed of in terms of an order dated 16.4.2009 passed in CWJC No. 8382 of 2007, whereby, in similar circumstance other employees of BIADA were required to pursue their appeal before the appellate authority which the petitioners had already preferred. The appellate authority allowed the petitioners appeal no. 53 of 2008, vide an order dated 21.12.2009, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

“Thus, before issue of the said consolidated charge sheet on 28.5.2007, the authorities were already convinced that charges had been proved and that termination of service was in order. It is like a second show cause notice which is issued after establishment of charges in a duly conducted departmental proceeding. It is not in the nature of a memo of charge which is issued along with a statement of charges and a memo of evidence. The satisfaction of the authority to conduct a departmental proceeding and order or intention to appoint a conducting office has also been not recorded along with this so called charge sheet or at any other stage.

In view of the facts mentioned above, I come to the conclusion that no departmental proceeding was conducted before passing the order of compulsory retirement.

Hence, I am constrained to allow the appeal and set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed by M.D. on 12.7.2007.”

5. Evidently, the appellate authority allowed the appeal as it found that the order of compulsory retirement was passed on certain