IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6524 of 2011 Ram Sakal Pandit Versus The Bihar State Road Transport ----------- 6. 14.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (for short’ Corporation’). Petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondents to pay him salary for the period 30.04.2004 to 14.12.2007 with statutory interest. Background facts are as follows:- On the relevant day the petitioner was discharging his duty of conductor in one of the buses of the respondent Corporation when Flying Squad of the Corporation made surprise checkings wherein the said bus was found carrying passengers without tickets. The authorities by office order dated 30.04.2004 compulsorily retired the petitioner in terms of provision contained in Rule 74(B)(II) of the Bihar Service Code. Subsequently, the said order was recalled/ annulled with immediate effect by an order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4) and the petitioner was directed to be proceeded again departmentally. There is no dispute that subsequently he was served with a charge sheet and on 2 completion of the inquiry proceeding he was inflicted with the punishment of imposition of a fine of Rs. 5000/-(five thousand). The said order is Annnexure-6. A perusal of the order contained in Annexure-6 indicates that the petitioner in the meanwhile superannuated from service on 31.05.2008 which was taken into consideration while imposing the punishment under the order dated 28.04.2009 (Annexure-6). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities themselves realised the mistake in passing the order of compulsorily retirement without complying with the provisions of the Act/Code and as such the petitioner is entitled to be paid for the period he was kept out of service. It is next contended that in similar circumstances one Sri Ram Pravesh Prasad Sharma was paid salary for the period he remained out of service as would appear from order dated 09.02.2009 (Annexure-8). Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand contends that the order recalling/ cancelling the previous order of compulsorily retirement passed in respect of the petitioner was passed on 10.12.2007 Annexure-4 and was made effective from the date of order. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid contemplation made in 3 the order and joined the service whereafter he was issued a charge sheet (Annexure-6) and on completion of the proceeding he was held guilty and was inflicted with punishment in the shape of imposition of fine only since the petitioner had by the time superannuated from service with effect from 31.05.2008. It next highlighted the order imposing fine under order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4) has till date not been called in question by the petitioner as such, in the given facts of the case, this Court may not invoke extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction to grant the relief(s) prayed for in the application. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) also contends that the case of aforesaid Ram Pravesh Prasad Sharma cannot be equated with the case of petitioner. It is submitted that the aforesaid Shri Sharma was not departmentally proceeded against and inflicted any punishment. The case of the petitioner thus stands on entirely different footing. On perusal of materials on record this Court finds that the order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4) was conditional in nature. The petitioner accepted the terms/conditions set out therein and joined the service whereafter he was paid full salary. The respondents thereafter levied a 4 departmental/disciplinary proceeding against him after issuing a charge sheet. On completion of the departmental proceeding he was held guilty and was inflicted with punishment. The petitioner in the meantime superannuated from service with effect from 31.05.2008. It is therefore not a case where subsequent to recall of the order conditionally he was not departmentally proceeded against and held guilty for the misconduct committed by him. Moreover, it appears that the petitioner did not challenge the condition imposed in the order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4). On the contrary, he accepted the same in its entirety and joined the service whereafter faced the departmental proceeding in which he was held guilty. The case of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be equated with the case of aforesaid Shri Sharma against whom no such proceeding was taken and punished. Petitioner faced the departmental proceeding wherein charge of carrying passengers without tickets was held proved. Till his superannuation from service no issue was raised by the petitioner. This Court, thus finds that there are adequate materials on record to suggest that he acquiesced in the order. The said order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-4) is not even impugned in this application. If 5 the said order passed in 2007 is not under challenge then, I am afraid, any relief prayed for in the application can be granted to petitioner. This Court, thus, declines to invoke its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Dismissed. Saif/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)