JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.2018 contained in Memo No. 3352 issued under the signature of Special Secretary, Department of Prohibition, Excise & Registration, Government of Bihar whereby, though a decision has been taken to reinstate the petitioner in service but for the period that he was not serving the department, such period having been deemed to be under suspension, 25% of the salary for such period has been withdrawn.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this decision of the respondent is not in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 13(3) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005.

4. The petitioner was earlier subjected to a departmental proceeding and was served with a punishment of compulsory retirement by order dated 05.02.2016. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner vide C.W.J.C. No. 4509 of 2016 wherein a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2016 found that the allegation against the petitioner was only of committing mistake in the calculation of stamp duty, causing revenue loss to the State and holding such carelessness to be bonafide. This Court also took into account that the enquiry committee as well as the department was of the view that with this allegation, only a minor punishment should be imposed on the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside and the matter was remitted to the disciplinary authority for writing out a fresh order on the quantum of punishment.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, again an order of compulsory retirement was passed by order dated 19.07.2016 contained in Memo No. 3362 which was issued under the signature of Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar. This again was challenged by the petitioner on several grounds including that since the petitioner was a gazetted government employee of the State Government, it was only the State Government which would be deemed to be the appointing authority and therefore the competent authority to subject the petitioner to any punishment under the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005. This ground alone was taken note of and accepted by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13737 of 2016 vide order dated 22.12.2016. By the aforesaid order, this Court set aside the order of punishment as being an order passed by an authority which was not competent to impose any punishment on the petitioner. However the Court allowed a passage to the Government to proceed in the matter, if so advised, but in accordance with law.

6. It has been submitted that thereafter a decision was taken by the Government to reinstate the petitioner in service and not put him to any further proceeding. However by the order impugned, it was held that the period during which the petitioner did not work because of the punishment imposed upon him be treated as period of suspension and only 75% of the salary for that period be allowed to him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is incorrect as it is not in tune with the provisions contained in Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 with respect to treatment of service on reinstatement as well as the admissibility of pay and allowances.

8. Section 13 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 state as follows:

13. Treatment of service on reinstatement and admissibility of pay and allowances where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of law. - (1) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by a court of law and such Government Servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularised and the Government Servant shall be paid pay and allowances in acco