JUDGMENT :

Heard Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 15.12.2015 contained in Annexure-22 to the writ petition and the prayer is also made for passing the consequential order considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as the juniors to the petitioner have already been promoted.

4. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Collector vide notification dated 24.07.1993 pursuant to the 37th Combined Competitive Examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna as contained in Annexure -1 wherein the name of the petitioner appears at Sl.no.1 of the said notification. The petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Taraiya (Saran) vide notification dated 13.12.1996 and in compliance of the same, the petitioner took over the charge on 24.01.1997. Consequent upon the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the service of the petitioner was finally allocated in the State of Jharkhand vide notification dated 09.05.2003. The petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Sadar, Chatra within the State of Jharkhand wherein the petitioner had received the charge sheet dated 07.02.2005. The charges against the petitioner were framed along with one Prem Prakash Sinha. The petitioner has obtained information about the punishment imposed upon the said Prem Prakash Sinha under the Right to Information Act wherein it has been informed that no action has been taken against Mr. Prem Prakash Sinha. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the departmental proceeding. The departmental proceeding was concluded and the enquiry officer has submitted the report wherein the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner has been proved and suggested certain punishment against the petitioner.

5. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.2096 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 05.08.2015. By way of quashing the punishment order and the appellate authority was directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass a reasoned order on the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority has passed the order wherein the punishment has been revised and the punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been passed by the appellate authority after the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority. Aggrieved with this, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition before this Court.

6. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges against the petitioner is with regard to payment of certain advance from the provident fund amount of different persons. He submits that the amount in question directed by the petitioner has been paid to the beneficiary whose account with regard to the provident fund was there. He submits that the petitioner has not misappropriated any amount. He submits that after remand by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the appellate authority has also come to the conclusion that there is no misappropriation of the fund, however, the appellate authority has only come to the conclusion that certain rule has not been followed and that is why the appellate authority has modified the earlier punishment order. He submits that one Prem Prakash Sinha was also charge sheeted in the said departmental proceeding and he has been left out by the respondents whereas the petitioner has been punished and due t