ORDER

Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, learned Advocate and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking the following reliefs: –

“i. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter no. 5502 dated 02.11.2012 (as contained in Annexure-8) whereby departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 45(B) of the Bihar Pension Rules and a memo of charge was issued.

ii. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Enquiry Report dated 27.07.2015, as contained in memo no. 315 dated 27.07.2015 (as contained in Annexure 14/A) in which both the charges were said to be proved against the petitioner.

iii. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Order bearing No. 4526 dated 09.10.2015 (as contained in Annexure – 17) whereby and whereunder the punishment of “15% reduction in the pension” has been imposed upon the petitioner.

iv. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus setting aside the entire departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Order dated 02.11.2012.

v. To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to make the payment of full pension from the date of the order of punishment and other dues legally admissible to the petitioner which have been illegally and malafidely deducted by the Respondents along with interest.

vi. To any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is entitled.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 31.0.1.2012 from the post of Deputy Commissioner (Excise), Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition. He had been earlier authorized vide letter no. 1688 dated 23.06.2011 issued by respondent no. 6 to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order dated 02.12.2010 passed in CWJC No. 2101/2000 by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. It is his case that along with the said letter he did not receive the entire brief pertaining to the writ application and was merely provided with the grounds of appeal with a direction to contact Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate, Supreme Court, for the needful.

4. It is submitted that for various reasons which he has explained, the SLP was filed belatedly. It is stated that on 06.02.2012 when the SLP was taken up for consideration, learned senior counsel representing the State took time to file a better affidavit explaining the delay of 320 days in filing the SLP as also stating as to what action had been taken against the erring officer(s) who were responsible for causing the delay.

5. Learned counsel submits that in a most arbitrary and malafide manner the petitioner was served with a notice vide letter no. 639 dated 01.03.2012 and was asked to submit his reply within fifteen (15) days as to why appropriate proceeding under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Pension Rules”) be not initiated against him.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner filed his reply dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure ‘7’) but without considering the show cause reply to the petitioner and in absolutely perfunctory manner, departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 43(b) of the Pension Rules and a memo of charge was issued vide letter no. 5502 dated 02.11.2012. On receipt of the memo of charge the petitioner requested the respondents to supply a copy of the documents which form basis of the memo of charge. It is submitted that the respondents made available a copy of the documents and thereafter the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 08.02.2013. In paragraph ‘15’ of the writ application the petitioner has reproduced the stand taken by him in his reply.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary proceeding was cont