JUDGMENT :

1. The office notes as regards the deposit of cost is unwarranted. That was a conditional order. The State has already filed the additional counter affidavit.

2. The present writ application was initially filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2019 contained in letter no. 24 issued by the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah (respondent no. 2) directing to conduct a departmental proceeding through the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) West Champaran, Bettiah against the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider revoking his suspension and appoint him on his regular post.

3. During pendency of the writ application since final order has been passed by the disciplinary authority and a decision has been taken to terminate the petitioner from service, the petitioner has, after seeking leave of this Court, challenged the order of termination by filing an Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2020. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the final order as contained in Memo No. 804 dated 16.07.2020 issued under signature of the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

Brief Facts of the Case

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court the following facts for the purpose of adjudication.

5. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as chaukidar at beet No. 3/12 in P.S. Majhauliya, District West Champaran. One Rahul Shrivastava who was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India Paras Pakari Branch lodged a First Information Report giving rise to Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016 against the unknown accused persons under Section 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that unknown persons had entered in the Bank and committed dacoity. Police investigated the case and submitted a chargesheet on 25.03.2016 against four named accused persons including this petitioner.

6. The Superintendent of Police, Bettiah (respondent no. 5) requested the respondent no. 2 to dismiss the petitioner from service because of the filing of the chargesheet against him. A departmental proceeding was, thus, initiated against the petitioner and a charge contained in prapatra ^d* was issued to the petitioner. Annexure 3' to the writ application is prapatra ^d*.

7. It appears that vide letter no. 699 dated 08.07.2016 issued by respondent no. 2, the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) West Champaran was authorised for conducting the departmental enquiry. After his transfer from the District one Shri Nurul Haque Sivani, Senior Deputy Collector, West Champaran was authorised to act as an Enquiry Officer.

8. Shri Nurul Haque Sivani submitted his enquiry report vide letter no. 198 dated 19.02.2018 stating therein that because the matter is subjudiced before the Hon'ble Court, hence, till the final decision of the Court it would not be appropriate to take any action. His observation was not liked by the then Collector who sent back the file to Shri Sivani, the Senior Deputy Collector for remarks and once again Shri Sivani wrote the same thing vide his letter No. 61 dated 07.07.2018. Not being happy with the recommendation of Shri Sivani to await the order of the Court, the District Magistrate, West Champaran vide order dated 04.01.2019 contained in Memo No. 24 dated 16.01.2019 authorised the Additional Collector (Departmental Enquiry) to conduct the departmental proceeding and authorised CO. Majhauliya to act as Presenting Officer in the matter. The Additional Collector, Departmental Enquiry submitted his final report against the writ petitioner vide letter no. 52 dated 19.06.2020.

9. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and submit his reply to the enquiry report which was accordingly done but the competent authority vide order dated 16.07.2020 (attached with the interlocutory applic