JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:

“(i) For issuance of an orders/directions or writs in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the order contained in memo no. 384(9) dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the Service Appeal of the Petitioner was rejected without application of mind with corresponding order contained in memo no. 461 (9) dated 29.05.2015 2015 coupled with memo no. 904(9) dated 24.05.2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Health Services, Bihar and communicated vide letter contained in memo no. 1609 dated 25.08.20174 as well as for quashing of the entire departmental proceedings initiated/drawn against the petitioner, on account of inordinate delay and laches on part of the respondents.

(ii) For issuance of further orders/directions or writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to make payment of petitioners’ full salary and arrears of full pension with entire retiral benefits including gratuity EPF and Leave Encashment in terms of revised pay scale with reasonable compensation.

(iii) For issuance of any further orders/directions or writs which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

3. Matter heard at length.

4. Petitioner was appointed on 29.07.1976 as a Medical Officer. On certain allegations he was placed under suspension on 30.03.2001. Inquiry proceedings were initiated and petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.06.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal, petitioner approached this Court. This Court allowed the petitioner’s on 18.03.2011 and remanded the matter for initiation of fresh inquiry. The official respondents were stated to have initiated inquiry in framing charges on 31.07.2002, however, copy of the charge memo, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses were not furnished to the petitioner and it is disputed fact whether it was served on the petitioner or not. As on today the official respondents are not in a position to apprise this Court in pointing out with reference to original record as to whether petitioner was communicated with the charge memo dated 31.07.2002 or not?

5. Assuming that petitioner was served with the charge memo accompanied by statement of imputation and list of documents and list of witnesses, if petitioner has failed to submit his explanation, in that event, the disciplinary authority was required to record that on a particular date show cause notice/charge was issued and there is no explanation of the petitioner. In the result, the disciplinary authority proceeded to appoint Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer on 17.01.2012.

6. On one or two dates, enquiry were stated to have been conducted on 17.02.2012. Thereafter, petitioner is stated to have submitted an application seeking copy of charge memo on 16.09.2013 and it was not provided to the petitioner. Abruptly on 22.01.2014, show cause notice was issued by the Secretary of the Department, however, it was not accompanied by Enquiry Officer’s report which is one of the mandatory requirement under Rule 18 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short “Rules 2005”). The petitioner had submitted explanation on 29.01.2014. Thereafter, once again petitioner was dismissed on 29.05.2015 and it was communicated after a long gap of more than three years that is on 25.08.2017. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and as on 11.09.2017 it was not decided. Thereafter, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in filing writ petition and it was disposed of with certain direction to consider his appeal before the appellate authority, such petition was allowed on 09.02.2018 with a time bound direction to pass order on the petitioner’s appeal by the ap