Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner while working as permanent Junior Booking Clerk was suspended on 25.5.1996 on account of the First Information Report being registered against him under Section 409 I.P.C. on 23.5.1996 for embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 43,185.75. While the criminal proceedings continued with the submission of charge-sheet by the Police and the cognizance taken by the criminal Court on the said charge-sheet, ultimately the said proceedings in Criminal Case No. 663 of 1997 resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 27.4.2005.

3. It is worth noticing that while the criminal case was going on, the petitioner retired on 30th April, 1997. It is after acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner applied for payment of his dues including retirement dues. Since, no orders were being passed on the petitioner’s application dated 3rd August, 2005, the petitioner approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 68126 of 2005 and the Court directed vide order dated 26.10.2005 to the concerned authorities, namely, respondent No. 2, to decide the representation of the petitioner.

4. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 26.10.2005, the petitioner submitted the same before the respondent No. 2, however, no action was taken and resultantly the petitioner had no option but to file the contempt application bearing No. 10411 of 2006, in which notices were issued. During the pendency of the contempt application, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 25th April, 2006, rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that a full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted against him with issuance of charge-sheet and show-cause notice was issued to him and thereafter his services were terminated on 30th November, 1999. So, in view of the fact that the departmental proceedings ultimately culminated in the termination/removal of the petitioner from service, the respondent No. 2 rejected the representation of the petitioner.

5. It is this order, which was initially challenged in this writ petition and the specific plea was taken that the petitioner was never served with any charge-sheet or show-cause notice and was not even communicated with any such order dated 30.11.1999. So, according to the petitioner, the entire proceedings were conducted without putting him to notice, affording opportunity of hearing and show-cause notice of the proposed punishment. Necessary pleadings have been raised vide paragraph Nos. 19 to 24 of the writ petition, which are reproduced herein below:

“19. That the impugned order dated 30.12.99 has been passed by the respondent No. 2 after retirement of the petitioner dated 30.4.1997 and thus the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and improper.

20. That the impugned order dated 30.12.1999 has been passed by the respondent No. 2 without giving any show-cause notice and without waiting the reply of the same.

21. That the impugned order dated 25.4.2006 has been passed only on the basis of order dated 30.12.99 without considering the demand of petitioner made in the representation.

22. That the impugned order dated 30.12.1999 came in the knowledge of the petitioner on the basis of order dated 25.4.2006, which was annexed in the short counter-affidavit in the contempt petition by the respondent No. 2.

23. That the impugned order dated 30.12.1999 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and its copy has not been given to the petitioner still now after making several demand.

24. That the impugned order dated 30.12.1999, 25.4.2006 is against the principles of equity and natural justice.”

6. This Court, initially vide order dated 3rd March, 2008, had directed the counsel for the respondent to file counter-affidavit and yet no counter-affidavit was filed and, ultimately, this Court vide order dated 16th January, 2014, directed the counsel for the respondents to file counter-affidavit an