JUDGMENT :

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. CWJC No. 1422 of 1995 was filed by the respondent (who has been substituted by his legal heirs vide order dated 6th September 2016) against the order dated 12th August 1983 by which he was dismissed from service. The writ Court vide order dated 23rd February 2004 set-aside the order of dismissal on the ground that necessary documents were not provided to the charged officer and remitted the matter back to the department for initiating a fresh inquiry by making available necessary documents to him.

2. In WP (S) No. 4676 of 2007, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that inspite of a specific direction passed in CWJC No. 1422 of 1995 necessary documents were not supplied to the charged officer and therefore the order of dismissal dated 21st September 2005 has been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice. A direction was issued to the respondent-State to calculate pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner counting the period between the order of dismissal and the date of his superannuation from service.

3. The State of Jharkhand is in appeal against the order dated 26th November 2014 passed in WP (S) No. 4676 of 2007.

4. In the order dated 26th November 2014, the learned writ Court has held as under:

“27. Thus, on the basis of the said judicial pronouncement and on the basis of the basic principle of service jurisprudence a delinquent employee is entitled to be given sufficient opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, in the instant case the earlier order dated 12.8.1983 has been quashed on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided with sufficient and adequate opportunity and the relevant documents have not been provided to him but again the same thing has been repeated by the respondent authorities. However, they have not challenged the order passed in CWJC No. 1422 of 1995 and thereby the order which was passed on 12.8.1983 has been directed to remain as same in the impugned order. However, the respondent authority has exercised the power under section 168(D) of the Bihar Board Miscellaneous Rules but the said rule is not applicable with respect to the petitioner because the same deals with the charges of discharge of temporary Government servant. In the entire pleading the respondent authority has not taken the plea that the petitioner was temporary Government servant.

28. In the backdrop of the facts stated herein above, the impugned order dated 21.9.2005 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such the same is quashed. Since the petitioner has already superannuated from service, no direction can be given for his reinstatement. However, the intervening period, during which the petitioner was out of service, will be counted for the purpose of pension.

So far as claim of back wages is concerned, the State Exchequer cannot be burdened for passing any direction in this regard, but however considering the fact that the petitioner has been put to unnecessary harassment for such a long period and he has been forced to attain age of normal superannuation, hence in peculiar facts of this case, the respondents are directed to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. Two Lacs to the petitioner within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

5. In the departmental proceeding, the original respondent (for short, respondent) was served a charge memo containing the following charges:

(i) Petitioner while holding post of Ex. Arms Clerk issued a Gun Licence No. 8/75 to Sri Parmanand Upadhya without the orders of the competent authority after forging the signature of District Arms Magistrate Sri R.P. Mukherjee.

(ii) Petitioner made interpolation in Col. 5 of Page 92 of Arms Register Vol. 1 by making some entry and forged the initial of the District Arms Magistrate.

(iii) Petitioner was the custodian of all arms records, Registers, etc. as Arms Clerk he did not make over the charge of case records of the above Licence No. 276/74 after he was transferred to Keredari.