Jayanandan Singh, J. – Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the Resolution contained in memo no.598 dated 25.3.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent no.3, by which, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding, he was inflicted with punishment of dismissal under the orders of the Governor, in terms of Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1959. Since the Resolution had been issued under the orders of the Governor, petitioner filed this writ application directly to this Court challenging the same. He has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him as Range Officer of Forests with all consequential benefits.

2. The background facts of the case of the petitioner are that, after due selection and training, he joined as Range Officer in the office of Chief Conservator of Forest, Ranchi on 3.4.1982. Subsequently, in due course of posting, he joined at Dhalbhum under the State Trading Division, Jamshedpur in July, 1992. He continued there for over a year and was transferred on 21.2.1994 to some other range and was relieved by the Divisional Forest Officer unilaterally. Sometime thereafter, on the charge of some omission and commission during his posting at Dhalbhum, he was suspended by a notification dated 22.6.1995, vide Annexure-1 with his rejoinder to the counter affidavit, under the orders of the Governor. It was stated that charge memo shall be issued later on. However, for more than two years no charge memo was issued and petitioner continued under suspension. In the circumstances, he moved the Ranchi Bench of this Court through CWJC No.4240 of 1996 (R) which was allowed by order dated 3.9.1997, vide Annexure-2 with the writ application, and his suspension was revoked on account of delay, but liberty was granted to the respondents to put the petitioner under suspension on the ground of pendency of criminal charges. Accordingly, by order dated 5.5.1998 his suspension was withdrawn. However, later on by letter no.1666 dated 8.3.1999 a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and by letter dated 18.5.1999, vide Annexure-3 with the writ application, enquiry officer was appointed who was directed to submit his report within 21 days. Charges were framed and were issued to him under memo as contained in Annexure-3. A proceeding was held and finally by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-9, petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal. Records show that even before suspension an FIR was instituted against the petitioner, vide Annexure-1, for offence under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and he was put on trial. The trial was finally concluded in 2001 and by judgment dated 6.7.2001, vide Annexure-7 with the writ application, petitioner was acquitted.

3. Opening his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the same set of charges petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court in the criminal trial. Hence, there could be no punishment in the departmental proceeding on the basis of the identical charges framed in the proceeding. He further submitted that, petitioner being a personnel of subordinate services, the proceeding held against him under the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1959 was bad in law as he was deprived of a right to appeal vested in a government servant under the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1935. Hence, he submitted that the entire disciplinary proceeding held under the former rule was bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore the order of punishment and the entire proceeding was fit to be quashed. In support of this submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of a Bench of this Court dated 30.9.2008 passed in CWJC No.13786 of 2001. On facts, he submitted that many of the findings of the enquiry officer were in favour of the petitioner and in fac