IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15121 of 2010 BENARASI CHUNIHARA, son of Late Dhiro Chunihara, resident of Village-Dandbat, P.S.- Habibpur, District-Bhagalpur. ---Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 5. The Collector, Bhagalpur. 6. The Deputy Collector (Establishment), Bhagalpur Collectorate, Bhagalpur. 7. The Treasury Officer, Bhagalpur. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. ---Respondents ----------- 2. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No.1049 dated 4th of August, 2010 (Annexure 7), whereby his claim for payment of interest over the delayed payment of retrial dues has been rejected stating therein to the effect that the delay in payment of the retrial dues to the petitioner, if any, was caused due to the pendency of the criminal as also the departmental proceedings against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the proceedings against the petitioner were absolutely bad in law as there was no material against the petitioner to implicate him either in the criminal case or proceed him departmentally. The charges against the petitioner having found devoid of any evidence was - 2 - accordingly quashed by this Court by its order dated 4th of July, 2006 passed in Cr.Misc. No.17969 of 2004, as contained in Annexure 1, and for want of any material against the petitioner, the aforesaid departmental proceeding was also ended in favour of the petitioner and he was exonerated of the charges vide order contained in Memo No.85197 dated 11th of March, 2008 (Annexure 2). In the nutshell, submission is that the petitioner cannot be faulted for the aforesaid proceedings which had caused delay in settling the payment of retrial dues and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the interest. Learned counsel for the State submits that after the above proceedings were disposed of, all the retrial dues of the petitioners have been paid and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to interest. Upon consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the order of this Court, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby the above criminal proceeding was quashed and also the order passed in the departmental proceeding, as contained in Annexure 2, by which the petitioner was also exonerated of the charges, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be faulted for the aforesaid two proceedings against him since both the proceedings were ended in favour of the petitioner as there was no material against him. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was also exonerated of all the charges and, as such, the order declining for payment of interest, as contained in Annexure 7, cannot be sustained in law. The same is, accordingly, quashed. Accordingly, the matter needs to be re-considered for - 3 - which the petitioner had filed a representation dated 19th of July, 2010, as contained in Annexure 6. Let the said representation be considered and disposed of on merits considering the observations of this Court as also the orders, contained in Annexures 1 and 2, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)