JUDGMENT :

S.N. Pathak, J.

Heard Mr. Jai Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

PRAYER

2. The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing notification dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder he has been dismissed from service whereas petitioner retired on 31.07.2010 itself. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to give consequential benefits and payment of due salary for the period from 01.04.2005 till 31.07.2010 and also for a direction upon the respondents to give all dues as ACP, Gratuity, Pension, LIC. etc.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as a Welfare Officer on 07.06.1974 and retired from the post of block Welfare Officer, Latehar on 31.07.2010. While posted at Chiniya Block, Barhwa in the year 2002 – 03 and 2003 – 04, petitioner had disbursed money to various NGOs through Cheque Book. It has been alleged that petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs.41,73,945.00/- relating to construction of Birsa Awas and as such he was dismissed from the service on 11.10.2010. A Certificate Case was lodged by the respondents on 17.09.2007 vide Letter No. 3129, Dated 26.12.2007. Simultaneously, petitioner was proceeded departmentally vide Letter No. 551, Dated 23.06.2008. It was stand of the petitioner that since he was not provided with relevant papers, he was not in a position to defend his case. Petitioner made several representations for payment of salary, increment but no heed was paid to the same. In the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges and as such, under Rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, petitioner was dismissed from the service and under Rule 49(4) and 97 of the said Rule, it was directed to recover and adjust the amount from his salary and other benefits. Challenging the same, instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Mr. Jai Shanker Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vociferously argued that petitioner has not committed any offence rather he has distributed the amount by cheque to the concerned NGOs and no amount has ever been defalcated. Learned counsel further argued that in the departmental proceeding, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to place his case neither the concerned document was supplied for giving reply to the show-cause. The main arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner for quashing the impugned order is that order of dismissal has been issued after retirement of the petitioner, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

5. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Justifying the impugned order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in the departmental proceeding, sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner and proceeding was conducted in accordance with law and in compliance of principles of natural justice. Petitioner was even issued second show-cause notice but he failed to appear before the disciplinary authority and did not reply to the second show-cause and hence there was no option before the disciplinary authority other than passing the order of dismissal and for recovering the defalcated amount from the dues payable to the petitioner. It has further been argued that petitioner has been paid salary till 31.03.2009 and he is not entitled for salary for the periods 01.04.2009 till 31.07.2010 as also the benefits of ACP, Gratuity, Pension and LIC benefits. Petitioner, without preferring any appeal before the department, has rushed to this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents however fairly submitted that petitioner has been paid amount towards P.F., as well as the salary for the period for which he was entitled. Lea