JUDGMENT/ORDER :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letter dated 20.03.2018, issued by the concerned authorities of the Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the already concluded departmental inquiry, conducted against the petitioner, has been remanded back to the concerned Departmental Inquiry Commissioner and he has been directed to conduct a de novo inquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for extending all the benefits to him which have been withheld on account of pendency of the connected departmental proceedings against him, specially the retiral benefits, inasmuch as the petitioner has already stood superannuated from the services of the State Government on 30.06.2014. Lastly, it has been prayed to quash the resolution dated 12.01.2015, issued by the respondent- authorities, whereby and whereunder the purported departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner while he was in service, has been converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(a) and (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, since the allegations for which the said proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, does not amount to a misconduct for the purposes of the provisions contained under the said Rules.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, way back on 16.06.2011 and two charges were leveled against him. The first charge leveled against the petitioner is regarding him having made certain statements before the Correspondent of the Aryan T.V., which was subsequently telecasted. The second charge is that the interview given by the petitioner to the Aryan TV Correspondent, amounts to indiscipline and is in contravention of the Bihar Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1976. It is the case of the petitioner that though he had asked for the C.D. of the said interview but the same was not provided to him initially, nevertheless, the same was provided to him subsequently on 02.04.2013, nonetheless no departmental inquiry was ever held as against him, however subsequently, a second show cause notice dated 23.05.2014 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent-authorities informing him that the four charges leveled against him have been found to be proved, hence reply be submitted as to why appropriate punishment be not inflicted upon the petitioner. In this regard, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without holding any department inquiry, the respondent- authorities had, in an ex-parte manner, held the charges leveled against the petitioner to have been proved and that too, not two charges but four charges were allegedly found to have been proved. The petitioner had then retired on 30.06.2014, whereafter the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 12.01.2015, had converted the on-going disciplinary proceedings into one under Rules 43(a) and 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

3. It appears that the departmental Inquiry Commissioner had then conducted a detailed departmental inquiry and had submitted his inquiry report dated 31.07.2017, as contained in his letter dated 01.08.2017, whereby and whereunder the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to have not been proved. Thereafter, the Principal Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch) had, by the impugned letter dated 20.03.2018, remanded the matter back to the departmental Inquiry Commissioner, Bihar, Patna-cum-Conducting Officer for conducting the inquiry against the petitioner, de novo and then submitting a fresh inquiry report.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged incident is of the year 2011 i.e. about 10 years old when the petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Patna and the respondent- authorities are hounding the petitioner even after his retirement as also even after the Inquiry Officer/Departmental In