P. B. Bajanthri, J.:–Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The present appeal is filed by the State in assailing the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5243 of 2018.

3. The respondent – Sagar Kumar Roy while working as a Nazir, he is alleged to have misappropriated sum of Rs. 2,05,62,000/- (Two Crores Five Lakh Sixty Two Thousands) in connivance with bank officials. Arising out of the aforesaid alleged allegations – respondent was subjected to parallel proceedings like departmental inquiry and criminal case. Criminal proceedings are still pending consideration before the jurisdictional forum whereas departmental inquiry was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal and ordering recovery of 2.5 crores.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the dismissal and recovery, respondent invoked remedy under Article 226 in filing C.W.J.C. No. 5243 of 2018. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed in favour of the respondent on 10.05.2018. Hence the present appeal is preferred by the State of Bihar.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is a serious case relating to misappropriation of huge amount of Rs. 2.5 crores and odd. If the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of penalty of dismissal from service and recovery on technicalities, in such an event, matter is required to be remanded to the disciplinary authority to commence inquiry from the defective stage and conclude within the stipulated period.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the aforesaid contention and submitted that it is a case of no evidence and no witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted that even though listing of witnesses have been cited along with article of charges, however, none of the witnesses have been examined in support of the alleged charge. It is also submitted that list of witnesses have not been made available, therefore, there is defect from the initial stage while issuing article of charges under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short “CCA Rules, 2005”).

7. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

8. Perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that there is serious alleged charge relating to misappropriation of 2,05,60,000/- and odd. If the disciplinary authority has committed certain errors in not following the relevant CCA Rules, 2005 from the stage of issuance of article of charge, statement of imputation, list of documents and list of witnesses and further there is no examination of witnesses, in such an event entire proceedings were required to be set aside and matter is required to be remanded to the disciplinary authority to commence fresh inquiry from the defective stage.

9. Learned Single Judge has has not noticed the Apex Court’s decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 reads as under:—

“46. In the last, the delinquent has submitted that this Court must issue directions for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of salary till date. Shri Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently opposed the relief sought by the delinquent contending that the delinquent has to be deprived of the back wages on the principle of “no work—no pay”. The delinquent had been practising privately i.e. has been gainfully employed, thus, not entitled for back wages. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of punishment and a fresh enquiry is to be held now, the delinquent can simply be reinstated and put under suspension and would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per the service rules applicable in his case. The question of back wages shall be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law only on the conclusion of the fresh enquiry.

47. It is a settled