IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10001 of 2010 1. NITIYA NAND SINGH S/O LATE PARASAN SINGH R/O VILL.- PAHARPUR, P.S.- WAZIRGANJ, DISTT.- GAYA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT SEWAK (PANCHAYAT SACHIV), MAKDUMPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD, AFTER SUSPENSION POSTED AT RATANI, PHARIDPUR BLOCK, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD (DISTRICT PANCHAYAT BRANCH) 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, JEHANABAD 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JEHANABAD 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MAKDUMPUR/RATANI PHARIDPUR/KURTHA/KAKO, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DISTT.- JEHANABAD ----------- 3. 24.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was suspended on 18.4.2008. Departmental proceedings have been initiated and remained inconclusive till superannuation on 31.7.2010. In C.W.J.C. No. 4556 of 2010, this Court on 2.4.2010 had directed that if the departmental proceedings are not concluded within three months for no fault of the petitioner, the suspension shall stand revoked i.e., from 2.7.2010. The petitioner appears to have represented with that order for subsistence allowance leading to the impugned order dated 27.4.2010. 2 Despite the passage of nearly three months in a limited claim for subsistence allowance and grant of adjournment also, the respondents have not considered it necessary to assist the Court by filing a counter affidavit and assist in quick dispensation of justice. The Court declines any prayer for further adjournment for filing counter affidavit. The impugned order dated 27.4.2010 is reasoned. That the respondents had full knowledge and awareness of the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4556 of 2010 is apparent from the fact that the impugned order refers to the representation of the petitioner dated 13.4.2010 at Anenxure-12 which contains the order of the Court as an enclosure. The order of the Court specifically states that charge sheet was served on 15.7.2008 on the petitioner. This was not disputed or denied by the State on that occasion. The impugned order dated 27.4.2010 states that the departmental order dated 9.6.2009 along with charge memo could not be served upon the petitioner due to his lapse. The letter dated 9.6.2009 is Annexure-C to the supplementary affidavit filed today. It talks of a change of the enquiry officer. It does not deal with 3 any fresh charge sheet or a supplementary charge sheet, in fact, it is completely silent on the charge sheet. Therefore, the reference to the letter dated 9.6.2009 in the impugned order dated 27.4.2010 that the petitioner was evading the receipt of the letter dated 9.6.2009 to which the charge were appended is obviously not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion of facts from the documents of the respondents themselves, this Court is not satisfied that the order dated 27.4.2010 on the very face of the document and the earlier orders of this Court contain recitals of correct fact. This Court directs the entire arrears of the subsistence allowance of the petitioner from 18.4.2008 to 2.7.2010 to be paid to him within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Considering that the petitioner has now superannuated and that the respondents have adequate powers in law to proceed with the departmental proceedings expeditiously, and also to proceed ex parte, if so considered necessary by them for reasons attributable to the petitioner but only after recording full reasons and discussion inclusive 4 of the attempts made to persuade the petitioner including the manner in which the notices were served on him. Let the departmental proceedings be finally concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The charges relate to not handing over of the records and register with regard to appointments leading to delay in verification and delay in issuance of notice in a recovery proceeding. Since there are no allegations of financial embezzlement or grave misconduct on part of the petitioner, if the respondents do not conclude the departmental proceedings within the time fixed above, considering his retirement, they shall be precluded from doing so. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)