1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. I.A. No. 2611 of 2011 has been filed questioning an order dated 13.5.2010 passed subsequently.

3. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering that it appears integrally connected with the original punishment dated 9.4.2010, in order to shorten the litigation between the parties, the Court considers it proper to allow the same. I.A. No. 2611 of 2011 stands allowed.

4. The petitioner at the relevant time a cashier, is aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2010 passed in exercise of powers under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules) by the Department of Water Resources directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 55.97 lacs from his gratuity and if full recovery from the same was not possible, the institution of a money suit along with withholding of his entire pension.

5. The subsequent challenge is to the order dated 13.5.2010 directing fresh departmental proceedings against him for having continued in service for approximately five additional years when according to his date of birth as recorded in the service book he should have superannuated earlier as also directing insti