The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee, whose order of compulsory retirement is set aside due to the absence of a proper disciplinary proceeding, is entitled to full back wages and allowances unless the employer can prove that the employee remained gainfully employed during the period of suspension.

This letters patent appeal arises out of an order, dated 12.03.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No.10977 of 2012, 2014 (4) PLJR 444, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court has allowed the said writ petition and quashed the impugned order, dated 24.04.2012. The Court directed the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna (respondent No.3 of the writ petition-appellant No.1 herein) to pay to the writ petitioner-respondent No.3 herein salaries and allowances for the period of his suspension, commencing from 31.07.2007 and ending on 30.12.2009, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and further directed to pay the salary of 22 days, with the interest aforementioned, which had been deducted from his salary in the month of June, 2007, by the order of the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna.

2. In the undivided State of Bihar, the State Government, under Section 3 of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Act, 1974 (in short, “BIADA Act”), established as many as six Industrial Area Development Authorities. Out of the six Industrial Area Development Authorities, so established, three of the Authorities, established at Bokaro, Ranchi and Adityapur, on bifurcation of the State of Bihar, fell, with effect from 15th of November, 2000, within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand; whereas Industrial Area Development Authorities, established at Patna, Muzaffarpur and Darbhanga, remained within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Bihar. The three Industrial Area Development Authorities, namely, Patna Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna, North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur, and Darbhanga Industrial Area Development Authority, Darbhanga, were merged in the year 2007 and all these three Industrial Area Development Authorities were reconstituted as Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the BIADA”), which is, in the light of the provisions of Section 3 of the BIADA Act, 1974, a body corporate.

3. Under Section 14 of the BIADA Act, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority Rules, 1981, was framed by the State Government and under Rule 8 thereof, appointment and promotion to the posts, carrying a maximum salary of Rs.840/- and above, shall not be made by BIADA except with prior approval of the State Government.

4. The writ petitioner-respondent No.3 herein, namely, Narendra Kumar Yadav, was appointed, in the year 1974, on the post of Technical Officer (Mechanical), by Patna Industrial Area Development Authority and he was posted at Barauni Industrial Area Development Authority, which was within the jurisdiction of North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur (in short, `NBIADA’).

5. Under Memorandum No. 41, dated 15.01.1976, NBIADA abolished the post of Technical Officer (Mechanical) and created a post of Assistant Development Officer (Mechanical). The writ petitioner, namely, Narendra Kumar Yadav, was appointed on the post of Assistant Development Officer (Mechanical) with effect from 01.10.1975. In course of time, the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 herein was promoted, with effect from 09.05.1983, as Deputy Development Officer and he was further promoted to the post of Development Officer by letter, dated 28.06.1995, the promotion of the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 herein, on the post of Development Officer, being with effect from 15.06.1995.

6. A preliminary enquiry was initiated against the writ petitioner-respondent no.3 herein in the year 2003 and a Two-Member Committee, having enquired into the allegations made against the writ petitioner-respondent no.3, held that out of 10 (ten) charges, 3 (three) of the charges stood proved. Pursuant to the findings, so recorded, no further action was taken against the writ petitioner-respondent No.3. However, yet another preliminary enquiry was made, in the ye