P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard learned counsel for respective parties.

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

“(A) For quashing the order dated 07.03.2018, bearing Memo No. 140 A) issued under the signature of the Director Secondary Education, Department of Education,Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioner working as Lab Assistant (Automobile Engineering Technology) at Mangal Seminary Inter College, Motihari has been dismissed from the service.

(B) For quashing the order dated 02.07.2018,bearing Memo No.331 issued under the signature of Principal Secretary-Cum-Appellate Authority, Department of Education,Government of Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure-P-1) issued by the Director Secondary Education has been affirmed and as such the order relating to dismissal of the petitioner has remained un-interferred by the Appellate Authority.

(C) For holding that the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure- P-1) and Appellate order dated 02.07.2018 have been issued by the Respondents in violation to the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 as also in violation the principles of natural justice moreover the departmental proceedings against the petitioner suffers from procedural impropriety and thus the aforesaid impugned orders are fit to be quashed. Further upon quashing the aforementioned order dated

(D) Further upon quashing the aforementioned order dated 07.03.2018 (Annexure-P-1) and Appellate 02.07.2018 the Respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner granting him the continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

(E) The Hon'ble Court may pass any other order/orders which it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and within the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.”

3. The petitioner was caught red-handed while alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Arising out of the aforementioned incident parallel proceedings were launched by the Department like departmental inquiry and criminal proceedings. Criminal proceedings is still pending consideration. In the departmental proceedings matter was concluded in imposition of penalty on dismissal of petitioner vide order dated 07.03.2018 and petitioner has exhausted remedy of appeal and it was rejected, thus, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that from the inception of issuance of charge memo till imposition of penalty and its confirmation by appellate authority there are violation of various provisions under Bihar (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005.

5. On this point, learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed and he had clear instruction from the Department to remand the matter.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission on behalf of learned counsel for respective parties, the impugned orders dated 07.03.2018 and 02.07.2018 (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) are set aside reserving liberty to the disciplinary authority to initiate fresh inquiry and complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, while complying each and every relevant provisions under Bihar (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The intervening period from the date of dismissal till fresh initiation of inquiry and its conclusion the disciplinary authority is required to examine whether petitioner could be placed under suspension or is he entitled for reinstatement or not in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of ECIL vs. B. Karunakaran reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 read with Chairman-cum-Managing Coal India Ltd. vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142. Paragraphs 46 to 50 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