Tapen Sen, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Junior Counsel to the Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand.

2. By order dated 20.12.2001, the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 and that is how Mr. A. Allam who had accepted notice on behalf of the State of Bihar is representing the case of the said respondent.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner in the instant case is for quashing the order dated 16.3.2000 (as contained at Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby and whereunder 20% of the pension payable to the petitioner was ordered to be deducted as a measure of punishment. By reason of the said order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. The shorts facts which are necessary to be taken note of for purposes of adjudication of this case are that on 19.3.1968, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Deputy Collector by the Bihar Public Service Commission. Subsequently all posts of Sub-Deputy Collectors were merged as a result whereof, on and from 1.4,1975, he became a Deputy Collector and was confirmed on that post with effect from 1.4.1978.

5. Upon initiation of a departmental proceeding as also a criminal proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 27.1.1998.

6. By letter dated 14.12.1989, the Deputy Commissioner did not find the petitioner guilty of any of the charges leveled against him.

7. Subsequently, it appears from paragraph 4 of the impugned order that by letter dated 18.8.1990 the suspension of the petitioner was revoked. However, finding the charges very grave against the petitioner, a resolution was taken to initiate proceedings under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, whereafter by order dated 19.4.1991, the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur, Hazaribagh was appointed as the Conducting Officer.

8. However, according to Mr. Rajendra Prasad, the notification by which departmental proceeding was initiated under Rule 55 was issued on 4.7.1991.

9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the proceeding which was in existence prior to the date of retirement (whether initiated on 19.4.1991 or 4.7.1991) was the proceedings under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930.

10. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, however stated and submitted that only in order to deprive the petitioner from the benefits of time bound promotion, the respondents re-started the departmental proceeding against him. Consequently he filed CWJC No. 273 of 1991 (R) which was disposed off on 13.1.1992 by Annexure-1. Mr. Rajendra Prasad states that by reason of the afore-mentioned judgment dated 13.1.1992 it is apparent that by letter dated 14.12.1989, the Deputy Commissioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges leveled against him and accordingly, sent a recommendation to the Joint Secretary that the petitioner should be exonerated from the charges.

At paragraph 23 of the judgment, however, the Honble Single Judge held that;--

"the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, evidently cannot be the D.C. Ranchi. It is, therefore, clear that by reason of this letter dated 14.12.1989, the Deputy Commissioner has not and/ or could not have held the petitioner not guilty of the charges."

At paragraph 25, Honble Single Judge held that :--

"in such a situation, this Court cannot grant a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the payment of salary to the petitioner from 27.1.1988 till 19.8.1990 i.e. the period of suspension nor can it direct grant of super selection grade to the petitioner. However, it must be observed that the case in hand depicts a sordid state of affairs. In view of the fact that the order of suspension as against th