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

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

“(i) For quashing the Inquiry report dated 29.04.2015 and supplementary Inquiry report dated 16.10.2015 on the ground that the Inquiry Officer vide his Letter No. 118 dated 07.09.2015 communicated the next date i.e. 19-10-2015 for fixing the date for hearing but submitted inquiry report before the said date itself.

(ii) For setting aside the order contained in Memo No. 993 dated 01.12.2015 issued by the Deputy General Manager (HR/Adm.), NBPDCL, Bihar, Patna whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service from the post of Junior Electrical Engineer.

(iii) For setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairman cum Managing Director, BSPHCL, Bihar, Patna whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been communicated by the Deputy General Manager (HR/Adm.) vide Letter No. 438 dated 11.08.2016.

(iv) For a direction upon the respondents to reinstate this petitioner with all consequential benefits on the post of Junior Electrical Engineer.

(v) For any other relief/reliefs for which petitioners may be deemed entitled too.”

3. Undisputedly petitioner was in judicial custody till 05.11.2015, the date on which petitioner was released on bail pursuant to the Apex Court decision dated 02.11.2015.

4. Petitioner was punished on 01.12.2015. In fact, it is to be noted that second show cause notice dated 23.10.2015 was served when the petitioner was in jail custody. In the light of these facts and circumstances, it is a clear case of violation of principle of natural justice that petitioner has not been provided opportunity to appear in the enquiry to defend his case. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a case.

5. Accordingly, inquiry report dated 29.04.2015, supplementary inquiry report dated 16.10.2015, Memo No. 993 dated 01.12.2015 and Letter No. 438 dated 11.08.2016 stand set aside. Petition is allowed in part. Reserving liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings and conclude within six months from the date of receipt of this order.

6. The disciplinary authority is hereby directed to regulate intervening period from 01.12.2015 to till decision is taken by the disciplinary authority in respect of regulating the period. Further the disciplinary authority is hereby directed to take note of whether the petitioner could be placed under suspension or he shall be taken back to duty in the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 read with Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Ors vs. Ananta Saha and Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142, in para 46 to 50, it is held 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 legal proposition that the result of the fresh enquiry in such a case relates back to the date of termination. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants that the result of the enquiry in such a fact situation relates b