The appellate authority must provide a reasoned decision considering all arguments in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring adherence to procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

(Anshuman, J.)

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1of 2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021 has been filed for a direction to the respondent for making payment of retiral dues as during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.07.2021 and, therefore, the present Interlocutory Application has been filed to amend the prayer in the writ petition for grant of payment of post retiral dues including Group Insurance, Leave Encashment, Gratuity, Provident Fund and Regularization of Pension month to month.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that a counter affidavit of Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021 has been filed in which the stand has been taken that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide letter No. 642, dated 17.02.2024 passed by the disciplinary authority (the District Magistrate, Patna) and his punishment was approved by the appellate authority also. Learned counsel for the State further submits that at present, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief of retiral dues. Till his dismissal shall not be set aside, he is not entitled to such prayer in the present writ petition.

3. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, it transpires to this Court that at present, the petitioner’s dismissal from service has already been made which has been approved in appeal and as such, the demand of post-retiral dues by the petitioner appears to be premature. Hence, at this juncture, the prayer for the amendment cannot be made.

4. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2021 is hereby rejected with liberty that in case, the present writ petition shall be allowed on merit, the petitioner may renew his prayer before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

Re. CWJC No. 5595 of 2019.

5. Vide order dated 30.04.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State have concluded their argument and a direction was made to them to file their respective written argument along with supportive judgments. The written argument has been filed on behalf of the petitioner but no written argument has been filed by the State till date. In this background, it is not proper for this Court to keep the case pending further, hence, judgement is being passed on the merit of the case.

6. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.06.2018 passed in Service Appeal No. 116 of 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No.2, the Divisional Commissioner, Patna), as contained in Annexure -13 and also for quashing of order dated 17.02.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 3, the District Magistrate, Patna), vide Memo No. 462, as contained in Annexure -10 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the basis of a finding of departmental enquiry.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation, Patna. He joined the service on 29th July 1986 at the Head Office at Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner joined in September 1996 as Treasury Officer, Buxar on deputation basis and transferred to Secretariat Treasury Sichai Bhawan, Patna in January 2000. He subsequently, transferred to Barh Sub Treasury, Patna, and ultimately, his cadre was absorbed in Collectorate Cadre Patna on 08.03.2006 and in November 2009, he was transferred to the Collectorate Treasury Patna from Barh Sub-Treasury. Learned counsel further submits that during his posting at Patna Collectorate Treasury, he was made a victim in a trap case. As a result, a Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27/2011 was lodged and the petitioner was taken into custody on 06.05.2011. During his judicial custody in the said case, he was put under suspension vide order dated 02.06.2011 with effect from 06.05.2011. He was further granted bail in the said vigilance case a