- (1.) HEARD the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing that part of the order dated 23.2.2004 (An -nexure -6) by which pension and gratuity has been refused in view of the Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 .
(2.) IT appears that petitioner was removed from his service with effect from 28.11.1986 (Annexure -1) on the ground that petitioner was found guilty in two departmental enquiries for negligence of duty, disobedience of the orders of the superior officers, dereliction of duty and assaulting the superior officer, and also theft of Government property and, therefore, he can not remain in Government service. Petitioner challenged order of his removal in Writ Petition No. 6650 of 1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 1.11.1999, concluding as follows : "From the fact aforesaid, it will be evident that the petitioner was removed from service on 5.11.1987 which order become final. Said removal was made because of allegation of mis -conduct, dereliction of duty and insubordination. In the aforesaid circumstances, even if the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case which related to assault on BDO, there was no occasion for the authorities to review the order of removal. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the matter can be looked into by the competent authority. This Court cannot interfere in respect of quantum of punishment that too after 12 years of order of removal. There being no merit, this writ petition is dismissed." Petitioner then preferred LPA No. 1515 of 1999 which was also dismissed. Then, petitioner filed writ petition being WP (S) No. 6593 of 2003 with a prayer to reconsider his case with regard to quantum of punishment imposed on him, i.e., removal from service. The said writ petition was disposed of on 7.1.2004 refusing to entertain the said prayer for reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment dated 29.1.1985 -1985 PLJR 446 and submits that petitioner has not been dismissed from his service, rather his service has simply been terminated and, therefore, in view of the said judgment petitioner is entitled to pension and gratuity.;