IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.154 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 14186/2010) BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN BIR CHAND PATEL MARG PATNA THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR. Versus 1. SHYAM KISHORE SINGH SON OF LATE BANWARI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR P.S. JAMALPUR DIST. MUNGER. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 3. DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIHAR SHARIF, NALANDA. For the petitioner : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Shree Ganesh, Advocate. ----------------- 02. 21.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) and the counsel for the writ petitioner. By filing the review petition Corporation is seeking review of the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.14186 of 2010, whereunder punishment order dated 18.11.2002 withholding his leave salary and gratuity amount has been quashed holding that the said order was passed without serving on him any charge memo as also without giving him any opportunity to defend himself. Review of the said order is being sought on the ground that before retirement of the petitioner on 2 31.12.2000 he was himself appearing in the proceeding and in support of such fact representation dated 13.06.1996 filed by the petitioner before the Special Officer has been placed on record of the review petition as Annexure-6 and with reference to the same and the other notices referred to in paragraph 5G of the review petition it is submitted that even after retirement of the petitioner notice dated 9.11.2000 10.1.2001, 23.3.2001 and 12.5.2001 was served on the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding but he failed to appear in the proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted report dated 25.7.2001, Annexure-9 on the basis of which punishment order dated 18.11.2002 was passed. Aforesaid submission has been noted for being rejected for the reason that from the review petition it does not appear that either the notices referred to in paragraph-5G or the enquiry report dated 25.7.2001 was ever served on the petitioner before passing the punishment order dated 18.11.2002. Further aspect which has come to light is that petitioner was not paid salary for the period 23.7.1994-26.7.1994 the date 3 between the alleged misconduct and suspension. He was also not paid subsistence allowance from the date of suspension, thereby seriously prejudiced to participate in the proceeding. The enquiry report dated 25.7.2001 having also not been served on the petitioner he had no opportunity at all to defend himself. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to review the order dated 24.09.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.14186 of 2010. The review petition is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)