IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5069 of 2008 RAJENDRA PRASAD son of Late Shivdhari Singh resident of Mohalla Nehru Nagar, Lal Baba Street No. 20 P. S. Patliputra District Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 4. The Treasury Officer, Jehanabad. 5. The District Provident Fund Officer, Jehanabad. 6. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 3. 04.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for Accountant General. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing/commanding the respondents to fix and pay the retirement benefits i.e. monthly pension, gratuity, unutilized leave salary taking into account of the pay scale of Rs.6500- 10500/- which arises due to Ist and 2nd Assured Carrer Progression Scheme 2003 to the petitioner for which a general order was issued by the Finance Department in the year 2006 itself and pay the other consequential benefits to the petitioner. (ii) To further direct the respondents to pay the amount of General Provident Fund to the petitioner who has been retired from his service on 31.01.2008.” 2 For the aforesaid relief, the petitioner has projected a picture in the writ petition that such withholding of retirement benefit was without any basis even when he was fully aware on the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 19.3.2008 itself that a criminal case for misappropriation and embezzlement of the Government fund was pending against him right from the year 2004 being Jehanabad P. S. Case No. 424 of 2004. That apart, the petitioner did not reveal that before filing of the writ petition that he was also subjected to a departmental proceeding in which he was also asked to file his show- cause reply on 28.1.2008 and the same was also filed by him on 3.3.2008. This conduct of the petitioner by itself is good enough for dismissal of the writ petition on account of suppression of relevant material facts. Moreover, the respondents in their counter- affidavit have explained that there was a departmental proceeding in which the petitioner was found guilty and he was also subjected to two different punishments namely dismissal of service with effect from 23.1.2008 as also withholding of entire retirement benefit. Counsel for the petitioner who has not 3 separately assailed the aforesaid order as contained in Annexure A would submit that subsequently he has filed interlocutory application. The fact that the petitioner did not reveal about the pendency of a departmental proceeding in the main writ petition and the respondents have come out with the order of punishment in the counter affidavit by itself good enough to dismiss this writ petition on account of suppression of facts. However, it is made clear that the petitioner, if so advised, may file a fresh writ petition assailing the aforesaid order of punishment which would be dealt on its own merits in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty this writ application is dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)