JUDGMENT :

Heard through V.C.

2. Since common issue is involved in both these writ applications; both are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

3. Writ application (W.P.(S) No. 1639 of 2013) has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs:

(A) To quash/set aside order of punishment contained in memo no. 2168 dated 10/11/2009 whereby and whereunder the following punishments have been awarded to the petitioner:-

(i) The petitioner would be entitled for nothing during the period of suspension except subsistence allowance.

(ii) Recovery of a sum of Rs.1,13,146/-.

(iii) Petitioner would not be entitled for posting as Drawing and Disbursing Officer.

(iv) Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

(v) The punishment shall be entered into the service book.

(B) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the full salary of the petitioner during the period of his suspension, i.e., from 11/06/2007 to 10/11/2009 minus subsistence allowance.

(C) For a direction commanding upon the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,13,146/- which has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner during the pendency of the review/appeal of the petitioner.

(D) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.

4. Writ application (W.P.(S) No. 3499 of 2015) has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(i) To quash/set aside the penalty order contained in Notification No.1133 dated 8.8.2011 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been inflicted with following punishments:-

(a) Withholding of three increments with cumulative effect;

(b) No work no pay for 99 days;

(c) Censure with warning for further;

(d) No payment except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension.

(ii) During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents be directed to pay the admissible terminal benefits to the petitioner including the pension, gratuity, leave encashment and all other dues, admissible to the petitioner on account of his retirement on 30.09.2013 from the post of Staff Veterinary Officer, Medninagar, Palamau.

(iii) To direct the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner dated 25.05.2012 against the penalty order contained in Notification no. 1133 dated 8.8.2011, which has not yet been disposed of, as informed to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, by memo No. 15 dated 23.03.2013.

(iv) To also direct the respondents to pay all three ACP/MACP to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner has rendered almost 34 years of service from the date of his appointment (30.5.1979) till the date of his retirement (30.9.2013) without any regular promotion.

(v) For any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both these cases suffers from procedural irregularity, inasmuch as, no enquiry report and/or second show cause notice was served to this petitioner before passing the impugned order in the respective departmental proceedings. As a matter of fact, the enquiry report was obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 after the punishment order was passed. He further submits that from perusal of the order of punishment in both these cases it would be evident that it is amongst major punishment; however, for the reason best known to the respondents, neither the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor any second show cause notice was issued; as such, there is gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel further referred the Judgment rendered in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. and Another Vs. Jahan Khan reported in (200