MAHABIR CHAUDHURY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for an order commanding the respondents to pay him the difference of salary which is said to be due to him for the period 26.9.1987 to 31.1.1992, i.e. from the date of his suspension till the date of his superannuation or retirement and also to pay him his retrial benefits, including pension, gratuity, G.P.F., Group Insurance, leave encashment salary and other admissible allowances to which he may be found entitled together with statutory and penal interest.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the aforementioned order of dismissal, the petitioner filed Service Appeal No. 116/1990 before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) and the Commissioner by his order dated 8.2.1993/10.5.1993 set aside the order of dismissal and directed to start the proceeding from the stage of appointment of Enquiry Officer. According to the petitioner, inspite of the aforementioned order passed in the year 1993, the authorities did not initiate nor re -start the proceeding till the date of filing of the writ application and consequently, after passing of the order of the Commissioner, it must be deemed that there is no proceeding pending as against the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that he also superannuated on 31.10.1992 i.e. during the pendency of the aforementioned service appeal but, he has not been paid anything till date. According to him, he has filed representations but to no avail. The petitioner has further stated that the Block Development Officer, Satgawan has also lodged an FIR against the petitioner under Section 409, Indian Penal Code but the case is still pending before the trail Magistrate, Kodarma.

(3.) ON 20.3.2002, when this case was initially taken up, the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma filed a counter affidavit in which he stated at paragraph 14 that the concerned file had been received in his office only on 14.3.2002 and therefore, he required at least six months time to dispose off the matter as per directions of the Divisional Commissioner passed in the above mentioned service appeal. In yet another counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh), it was stated at paragraph 9 that proceeding as per the order of the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh could not be initiated on account of the division of the old district of Hazaribagh on 10.4.1994 and further action in the matter was to be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma as the petitioner had retired from Satgawan Anchal falling in the district of Koderma.