This appeal arises out of the order passed in CWJC No.7362 of 2003.

2. The appellant was appointed in the year 1996 as an Assistant, in T.B. Centre at Patna, established and maintained by the Government of Bihar. In the year 2000, he was entrusted with the duties of the Establishment Section.

3. An audit was conducted into the accounts of T.B. Centre for the years 1992-98. It was found that substantial amounts were drawn towards the salary on fictitious names. An FIR was filed in the year 2000, alleging defalcation of amounts referable to the years 1992-93. Four persons, including the appellant herein, were named therein. However, the police did not state anything in the chargesheet against the appellant on the ground that nothing was found against him. In respect of others, the chargesheet was filed and proceedings culminated in passing of final orders by the trial Court.

4. In respect of irregularities that are said to have taken place in subsequent years, another FIR was filed, but the name of the appellant did not figure therein.

5. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and one Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Karn, by the department. The appellant submitted his explanation denying the charges and referring various facts. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the Director-in-Chief, Health Services-3rd respondent herein appointed the Additional Secretary, Department of Health- 2nd respondent as an enquiry officer. The 2nd respondent, in turn, submitted a report dated 15.07.2002 holding that the appellant is guilty of misconduct. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dismissing the appellant from service on 24.1.2003, just one week before he attained the age of superannuation.

6. Challenging the same, the appellant filed CWJC No.7362 of 2003, on several grounds, including one of the basic lapses in the disciplinary proceedings and absence of any specific charges, apart from the merits of the matter. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 22.11.2013. Hence, this appeal.

7. Sri S. D. Sanjay, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that though a charge memo was issued to the appellant, neither any charges were mentioned therein; nor any specific allegation was made against the appellant. He contends that almost all the allegations were against one Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Karn and the name of the appellant was not mentioned, even in a casual manner. He submits that though no specific charges were framed, the disciplinary authority thought it fit to appoint an enquiry officer and the latter, in turn, passed an order, and not report, that too without examining any witness, or referring to any document. He submits that the disciplinary authority also did not apply its mind to the facts of the case and has denied to the appellant, the benefit of his entire service by dismissing him, just one week before the date of actual retirement.

8. Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned Standing Counsel-2 for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that huge funds of the State have been misappropriated with the active cooperation of the appellant and that disciplinary authority as well as the learned Single Judge have taken correct view of the matter. He submits that in the charge memo, extensive reference was made to the acts and omission on the part of the appellant and the enquiry Officer has also taken the same into account, and has submitted the report.

9. The brief factual background of the case has already been furnished. It is the prerogative of the employer- 3rd respondent, to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appellant, even if the criminal proceedings initiated against him did not fructify. It is fairly well settled that the parameters for proving the charges in the criminal case, on the one hand, and the disciplinary proceedings on the other hand, are different and even if an employee is acquitted of the particular charges in the crim