Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Resolution dated 24.02.2012, issued by the Officer on Special Duty cum Deputy Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner under Rule 14 (xi) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) (Amendment) Rules, 2007. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of consequential relief by way of reinstatement and payment of back wages, apart from grant of other benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the services of the State Government as a Bihar Administrative Service Officer on 03.10.2000 and was posted at various places from time to time. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Palasi Block, Araria, from 09.05.2005 to 14.10.2005. On 14.10.2005, the petitioner had handed over the charge to one Sri Surendra Roy. Thereafter, by a Resolution dt. 29.01.2009, the petitioner was placed under suspension and then vide memo dated 19.03.2009, memo of charges in Praptra ‘Ka’ was served upon the petitioner and a departmental inquiry bearing Departmental Inquiry No. 3 of 2009 was initiated. In the said memo of charges, primarily, two charges were levelled, one regarding opening of Bank account in Dehti PACS, contrary to the guidelines, issued by the State Government, pertaining to Sunuschit Gramin Rojgar Yojna (SGRY) and depositing a sum of Rs. 172.20 lacs approximately, in between the period 16.5.2005 to 30.08.2005 and the other one regarding misuse of the said money. The petitioner had filed his reply, whereafter the departmental inquiry had been conducted and then the Inquiry Officer had submitted an inquiry report dated 12.11.2009, wherein the first charge regarding opening of bank account in Dehti PACS had stood proved, however, the charge regarding misuse of money was not found to have been proved. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, had then, vide letter dated 11.01.2010, proposed for inflicting minor punishment upon the petitioner, however, the Respondents, had instead decided to issue an amended memo of charge, which was issued vide memo dated 12.07.2010 and thereafter, a de novo inquiry was initiated, wherein the then Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea was appointed as the new Inquiry Officer.

3. As far as the amended memo of charge is concerned, the same contains two charges, firstly regarding the petitioner having deposited a sum of Rs. 1.72 crore approximately with the Dehti PACS in account no. 14 of 2004 and secondly, the petitioner having misused the said money for personal gains. The Inquiry Officer had then held the inquiry and submitted his inquiry report, vide letter dated 30.3.2011, finding the aforesaid two charges to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority had then issued a second show cause notice dated 27.4.2011, to which the petitioner had submitted his reply and then the impugned order dated 24.02.2012 has been passed, whereby and whereunder punishment of dismissal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The said order dated 24.02.2012 had been challenged before this Court by way of the present writ petition and the same was allowed by an order dated 15.07.2016, on the ground that the present case stands on a similar footing to that of Shamim Akhtar, Surendra Rai and Gyanand Yadav, whose orders of punishment of dismissal from service have already been set aside by various orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court in the writ petitions preferred by them. Nonetheless, the Respondent-State had filed an appeal bearing LPA No. 2377 of 2016, which was allowed by a learned Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 19.01.2023 and the aforesaid order dated 15.07.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside, on the groun