JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. Since both these writ applications are interconnected; as such, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P. (S) No. 136 of 2016 has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the office order as contained in memo no. 4532 dated 29.10.2015, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 4), whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with retrospective effect i.e. 21.10.2008, after the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2015 from the post of Assistant Teacher and also for payment of all consequential benefits after quashing the impugned order.

3. W.P. (S) No. 4669 of 2015 has been preferred by the petitioner for direction upon the respondent Authorities to pay all pensionary benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund and other admissible outstanding dues on account of retirement of the petitioner on 30.04.2015 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Ratanpur, Govindpur-02, Dhanbad and also to pay the salary after deducting the subsistence allowance from 24.11.2008 to 30.04.2015 inasmuch as, the petitioner was put under suspension on 24.11.2008 and retired on 30.04.2015 without conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

4. Brief factual matrix relevant for disposal of the matter as disclosed in the writ applications are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.04.1977. In the year 1995, a case was instituted against him being Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No. 355 of 1992, registered under Sections 302/307/149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code in which he was convicted on 14.10.2008 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on 21.10.2008. However, he was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, which is still pending before this Court. The petitioner was put under suspension on 24.11.2008 (Annexure-1) and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by framing memo of charge on 31.03.2015 (Annexure-2) and he was directed to submit his reply to the memo of charge on 08.04.2015 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, on 11.04.2015, the petitioner responded to the letter dated 08.04.2015 and submitted his reply to the memo of charge on 21.04.2015 (Annexure-5). During pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2015 while he was posted as Assistant Teacher, Middle School, Ratanpur, Govindpur-02, Dhanbad. On 27.05.2015 (Annexure-6), the petitioner submitted all the relevant papers for payment of his pensionary benefits, but however, with no effect. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been dismissed from service retrospectively w.e.f. 21.10.2008 i.e. the date of sentence after conviction, by the impugned office order dated 29.10.2015 (Annexure-7).

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the office order dated 29.10.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from his services with retrospective effect is totally against the settled principle of law as dismissal order cannot be passed retrospectively. Learned counsel further contended that since the petitioner has been superannuated on 30.04.2015 and he was dismissed from his services on 29.10.2015 as such, the petitioner is entitled to get all the consequential/retiral benefits payable to him. He further contended that an act done by the petitioner in his private capacity and not involving discharge of his official duty could not amount to an act of moral turpitude. He further contended that retiral benefit cannot be withheld under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules, as Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules specifically provides the right of withholding or withdrawing any pension or any part of it, if a pecuniary loss has been caused to the Government and it is incumbent upon the authorities to