ORDER

This writ application has been preferred initially challenging the order of the suspension of the petitioner with effect from 28.03.2014 vide letter no. 4225 dated 23.08.2017. A direction has been sought for revoking the suspension of the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for a direction to pay all the arrears to the petitioner with consequential benefits from the date of his earlier termination with effect from 28.03.2014.

2. Briefly stating, this is the second round of litigation brought by the petitioner. He was posted as Block Supply Officer, Dumraon, Buxar. His service was terminated vide Memo No. 2175 dated 28.03.2014 after conducting a disciplinary proceeding. The said order of termination was assailed before this Court in CWJC No. 1970 of 2016. A learned coordinate Bench of this Court, upon consideration of the writ application found that the presenting officer on behalf of the department had failed in his duty to support the charge set up against the petitioner by leading evidence in this regard. The relevant part of the findings, observations and directions of the learned coordinate Bench in CWJC No. 1970 of 2016 are being reproduced hereunder:—

“Reverting to the case in hand, conformingly even though a Presenting Officer was appointed vide Annexure 16 for the proceeding but he has failed in his duty to support the charge set up against the petitioner by leading evidence in this regard. In other words, the Enquiry Officer's opinion is a mechanical endorsement of the charge memo. Even though legal position is well settled that strict rule of evidence would not apply in a departmental proceeding but then there has to be some evidence led to support the charge and there cannot be a mechanical endorsement of the charge on mere seriousness of allegations.

In the uncontested position discussed above and where the finding of the Enquiry Officer and that of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are mechanical endorsement of the allegations, the decision making process is clearly defective.

In result, the Enquiry Officer's report dated 20.3.2008, impugned at Annexure 2, together with the order of the disciplinary authority dated 28.3.2014, impugned at Annexure 10, and the order of the appellate authority dated 18.8.2015, impugned at Annexure 12, cannot be upheld and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back with the liberty to the authorities, if so advised, to proceed in the matter afresh from the stage of enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

Let the records of the disciplinary proceeding be returned accordingly.”

3. After the said order was passed by the learned coordinate Bench, the department appointed the Deputy Director, Food, Munger Division, Munger as Enquiry Officer. An order contained in Memo No. 4226 dated 23.08.2017 (Annexure ‘5’ to the writ application) would show that the District Supply Officer, Buxar was appointed as presenting officer, the Enquiry Officer was supposed to serve the copy of Parpatra ‘Ka’ together with all the evidences and to conclude the enquiry within a period of three months. During this period, the petitioner was placed under suspension once again with effect from 28.03.2014. The order of suspension of the petitioner is contained in Memo No. 4225 dated 23.08.2017.

4. This order was assailed by the petitioner by filing this writ application while he was still in service. During pendency of the writ application the petitioner superannuated from service with effect from 31.07.2019.

5. This writ application was taken up for consideration by this Court on 03.09.2020. A grievance was raised on that day that the respondents have not paid full subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules and even after his retirement he has not been paid the admitted post retiral dues in the name of the pendency of the proceeding. In fact the disciplinary proceeding was converte