Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –

(i) Issuance of an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing/ setting aside the order impugned as contained in Memo order No. 4326(s) dated 30.05.2013 (Annexure-17) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been reverted to the Post the of Assistant Engineer in lowest pay scale for whole service period, as well as permanent posting on nonwork post.

(ii) Issuance of an order, direction or a writ in nature the Certiorari, quashing/ setting the order impugned as contained in letter 5140 dated 07.06.2019 (Annexure-21) whereby and where under the review petition for review of order of punishment as contained in Annexure- 17 (supra) has been rejected.

(iii) For a declaration that the memo of charge dated 02.07.2009 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable in eye of law as the same has not been framed and approval by the competent authority.

(iv) For a declaration that the findings of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Reviewing Authority are based on no evidence.

(v) For commanding the Respondents to restore the petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer with all consequential benefits as if the orders impugned were never in distance.

(vi) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department, Government of Bihar, after due recommendation from Bihar Public Service Commission. Counsel submits that in the year 2007 he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer, which is a Class-I Gazetted Post. Counsel submits that in the year 2007 the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in West Building Division, Danapur, and also he was given additional charges of two other Divisions having enormous work load. Counsel submits that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him, which was subsequently resulted into punishment and against the final order of punishment he has challenged the punishment order in review and, thereafter, moved before this Court in CWJC No.1332 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed off with certain liberty. The concluding portion of the said order is as follows: –

“9. The order of the Reviewing Authority dated 10.3.2014 is without assigning any reason whatsoever. In view of settled principles of law requiring recording of reasons is unsustainable in law.

Order of the reviewing authority dated 10.03.2014 is quashed. Matter is remitted to the Reviewing Authority. Issues raised in the review petition, which have been taken note of in the instant order, are required to be considered by the Reviewing Authority.

10. Since prior to institution of the instant writ proceedings, the issue regarding charge memo being without jurisdiction, has not been raised before the authority, Counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to raise said plea with reference to the relevant Rules in this regard by supplementing his memorial dated 14.6.2013. The liberty, as prayed for, is granted. The petitioner should supplement his review referring to the extant rules and the service condition wherein the competent authority has been prescribed for issuance of charge memo on the petitioner, who at the relevant time was posted as Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Danapur.

11. If such supplementary application is filed within four weeks, the same is required to be considered in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. It is expected that since the issue is now about ten years old already, that the respondent authorities would take a final decision on the review application expeditiously and without any undue delay.

12. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.”

4. Afte