JUDGMENT :

HARISH KUMAR, J.

This Court has heard Mr. Binod Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Sunita Kumar, learned Advocate for the State. Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, learned Advocated appeared as Amicus Curiae in pursuant to the order of this Court to assist on the point of law.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to an order dated 16.09.2010 contained in Memo No. 4093, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna by which the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher was dismissed under Rule 20(1) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2005’). The petitioner also sought a direction upon the respondents to grant all consequential benefits, including salary, pensionary benefits, gratuity, leave encashment, arrears of pension with interest for the period of service up to the date of retirement by calculating on the basis of last pay scale.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Government Middle School on 06.04.1982 and served without any adverse entries until he became an accused in a criminal prosecution arising out of Maranchi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was finally convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 21.12.2009 and taken into custody after conviction.

4. Aggrieved with the judgment of conviction, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No.232 of 2010 before this Court. During the pendency of the Appeal his sentence and fine were stayed and enlarged on bail by the Appellate Court. In the aforesaid premise, the petitioner sought permission to rejoin his duty on 13.03.2010. In response thereof, the District Superintendent of Education, Patna called for a report. Further, the petitioner was asked to serve show-cause under letter no. 1669 dated 18.03.2010. The petitioner submitted his explanation/reply on 29.03.2010 with categorical assertion that the Appellate Court had stayed the sentence and enlarged him on bail during the pendency of the appeal. However, the reply of the petitioner did not find favour and the District Superintendent of Education, Patna issued an order dismissing the petitioner from service 16.09.2010 as contained in Memo No. 4093 (Annexure-P/4 to the writ petition), which is impugned herein.

5. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 13280 of 2011, which was disposed of on 07.03.2012 with a liberty to seek reinstatement, if the petitioner is exonerated by the Appellate Court (Annexure-P/5). Subsequently, the learned Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the petitioner, as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner was discharged vide order/judgment dated 20.08.2024.

6. Strengthening, with the order of acquittal, afore noted, the petitioner represented before the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna, District Education Office, Patna on 14.10.2024 seeking review of the order dated 16.09.2010, but no action has been taken. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also attained the age of his superannuation in the year 2016 and has received amount of only GPF and GLI and his demand for pension, gratuity and leave encashment was not accepted. This Court is also apprised that the petitioner is a physically challenged and presently is undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai.

7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner referring to the aforesaid facts, especially the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench whereby the petitioner has been acquitted and discharged vide order/judgment dated 20.08.2024 submitted that once the very basis of the impugned order of dismissal is no more in existence and taken away by a competent Court, the petitioner cannot be deprived from all the service benefits including pension and other retiral be