IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.3413 OF 2008 SITARAM MISTRY, SON OF SHRI SHEO MISTRY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHEONAGAR DIARA, POLICE STATION BALIA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY –CUM- COMMISSIONER, DEPART OF AGRICULTURE, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BIHAR, PATNA ****** 4. 21 /04/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2007 issued vide memo no. 924 by which the Special Secretary, Agriculture Department has held that the order dismissing the petitioner dated 19.01.2001 is revived. It is also said that the petitioner would be treated to be under suspension from 19.01.2001 to 31.03.2003. The latter part is incongruous with the order imposing punishment, which is dismissal from service. The petitioner had moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2740 of 2001 against the order of his dismissal from service dated 19.01.2001 (Annexure-15), which has been revived by the Special Secretary. The order of dismissal was quashed by the Writ Court vide order dated 26.07.2004 and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The State filed LPA No. 1005 of 2005 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.09.2005 with a direction that the 2 order of the Single Judge is set aside and the State is now directed to serve a fresh show cause notice along with the enquiry report on the private respondents, after giving opportunity to the private respondents, the State shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law. Thus, it is obvious that the LPA Court set aside the order quashing the dismissal of the petitioner, but at the same time, also directed that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to appear and file second show cause after he was served with a copy of the notice and the enquiry report. The order impugned has obviously been passed without any application of mind. Merely by stating that the petitioner is guilty of the charges as mentioned in the charge sheet does not satisfy the requirements of passing a speaking order. Obviously, when the second show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner, the authorities concerned should consider the defence raised by the petitioner and answer it by passing a speaking order. I may also point out that the LPA Court directed that the respondents should pass a fresh order. Therefore, revising the earlier order dated 19.01.2001 does not satisfy the direction of the LPA Court. In the result, I quash the order issued under 3 memo no. 924 dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure-15) and remand the matter back to the respondent-the Special Secretary, Agriculture Department, Government of Bihar, Patna to pass a fresh and reasoned order in accordance with law. Having passed the order remanding the case of the petitioner for reconsideration, the question which has been raised before this Court is whether the Authorities can pass an order dismissing the petitioner from service, once he has retired from service on 31.03.2003? The answer may be found in the decision of this Court in the case of Shambhu Saran vs. the State of Bihar & Others [2000 (1) PLJR 665 (FB)]. This Court has held that after retirement of the person facing a departmental enquiry, he cannot be punished by an order of dismissal, but pension can be withheld and such other steps may be taken as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules. The appellate authority will have to keep in mind the aforesaid law laid down in the aforesaid case before passing any order imposing punishment on the petitioner. This application is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)