Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Rajnandan Prasad, learned counsel along with Mr. Umesh Kumar Roy and Mr. Vikash Kumar Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Vivek Prasad, learned GP-7 along with Mr. Sudhanshu Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned counsel along with Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'B.P.S.C.' for short).

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:—

“(i) Issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order notified and communicated vide memo no. Yo.Stha.03/03-03/2016 705/Yo.Pi. Patna dated 17.02.2017 passed by the respondent no. 3 (as contained an Annexure 8) whereby and whereunder it has been notified that in respect of the five charges levelled against the petitioner for which the departmental proceeding had been conducted vide notification no. 1427 dated 26.05.2009 and one charge was said to be proved and one charge was said to be partially proved, therefore it had been decided to dismiss the petitioner from service under Rule 14(x) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, and so by the impugned notification he was dismissed from service after 26 years of service as an officer in the State Government in which lastly he was posted as Assistant Director, Regional Planing Office, Purnea Division, Purnea.

(ii) Issuance of an appropriate writ including a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, and not to disturb and harass the petitioner in the manner in which he has been disturbed and harassed for 8 years in the departmental proceedings in which earlier it had been decided at the highest level that in view of the opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission at the most two increments could be stopped without cumulative effect and accordingly the proposal for dismissal of the petitioner from service was withdrawn in later part of 2014 and the matter had been finalised, but all of a sudden through curious and peculiar manipulation the petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.

(iii) Issuance of any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

BRIEF FACTS

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the correctness of the penalty of dismissal order dated 17.02.2017, by which the petitioner has been directed to be removed from the service. The challenge mounted by the petitioner in the present writ petition arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner was appointed by the Government of Bihar on 07.09.1990 as a Credit Planner-cum-Rural Development Expert in Planning and Welfare Department, Government of Bihar at Bettiah, from where, he was transferred to Bhabhua on the post of In-Charge, District Planning Officer, Kaimur and he was transferred to Siwan. The petitioner was relieved from Bhabhua on 14.08.2007 and joined the District Planning Office in Siwan on 21.08.2007. While the petitioner was posted at Siwan, the respondents issued a notification vide Memo No. 1427 dated 26.05.2009, indicating a decision to hold a Departmental Enquiry based on certain charges contain in ‘Form K’. The Enquiry Officer concluded the Enquiry Proceeding and submitted the report on 06.12.2010 holding that the petitioner was guilty on account that the Charge No. 2, which was proved but only partially and Charges No. 4 and 5 were proved against the petitioner and Charges No. 1 and 3 were not proved. Charge No. 2 related to withdrawal of salary during the period of incarceration of the petitioner from 29.11.2001 to 01.12.2001 at Motihari Jail in connection