M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 13.4.2005 passed in C.WJ.C. No. 3562 of 1999(R) whereby the learned single Judge allowed the application, quashed the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 (writ petitioner) from services and further held that the writ petitioner is entitled to salary for the period of his suspension.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: - The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was working as Assistant Accountant in Ranchi Khunti Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (in short 'the Bank'). In 1994 the writ petitioner informed the Bank that the Development Officer, namely, Lal Rabindra Nath Sahdeo, started misappropriating the Bank money after obtaining his signature on the cheque. Consequent thereupon, a First Information Report was lodged by appellant No. 2 -Managing Director of the Bank alleging misappropriation of huge amount of the Bank. The writ petitioner was put under suspension by order dated 28.11.1994 followed by a show cause notice. After consideration of his explanation, the writ petitioner was directed to join his duty. The writ petitioner accordingly joined on 21.3.1997. However, again a show cause notice dated 14.5.1998 was issued to the writ petitioner by appellant No. 3 -Deputy Development Commissioner -cum -Administrator of the Bank asking him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. On the basis of the report of the Joint Registrar, the Deputy Development Commissioner -cum - Administrator of the Bank vide order dated 15.7.1998 dismissed the writ petitioner from service, although in the departmental enquiry, he was not found guilty of any misappropriation. The writ petitioner challenged the said order of dismissal by filing a writ petition being C.WJ.C. No. 2920 of 1997(R). By judgment dated 10.3.1999, this Court (Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court as it then was) quashed the order of dismissal giving liberty to the appellant -Bank to proceed in accordance with law with respect to back wages and for passing any other order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant -Bank challenged the same by filing L.P.A. No.103 of 1999(R) which was ultimately dismissed on 6.8.1999. The writ petitioner was, therefore, allowed to join his duty, but again another show cause notice dated 15.6.1999 was issued by the Administrator of the Bank asking the writ petitioner to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on account of the aforementioned charges. The writ petitioner again . submitted his reply on 26.9.1999 stating inter alia that in no way he can be held responsible for any defalcation as he has not been found guilty in the departmental enquiry.
(3.) THE appellant -Bank having not satisfied with the explanation of the writ petitioner, again dismissed him from service by order of dismissal dated 15.10.1999. The writ petitioner again challenged the said order of dismissal by filing the aforementioned writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3562 of 1999(R) which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order of dismissal has been quashed. The learned Single Judge after consider -ing the facts of the case and after hearing the parties, came to the following findings as mentioned in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment: "9. After hearing the parties and considering the rival contentions and materials on record, I find that inquiry officer, after conducting the inquiry, came to the conclusion that the amount was not defalcated by this petitioner. Though the charges of defalcation against the petitioner was not found proved, the disciplinary authority held the petitioner guilty and awarded punishment of dismissal. The said punishment order was assailed in C.W.J.C. No. 2920 of 1997(R) and after hearing the parties, was quashed. Thereafter, there was no fresh inquiry, no further evidences were brought on record. Only a show cause was issued to the petitioner to which, the petitioner replied pleading that there was no material or evidence on record to establish the charge and the inquiry officer has rightly come to his finding and held him.not guilty of the charges and in that view he was entitled to be exonerated. The respondent No. 3, without any legal basis again held the petitioner guilty and awarded punishment of dismissal. From going through the order of the respondent No. 3, it is evident that his order is based on inferences, assumptions and presumptions as he has used the words 'ought' and 'ought not', 'expected' and 'not expected' in coming to the conclusion and there is no discussion of any evidence or materials on record to support his findings. It is relevant to mention that earlier order of dismissal was quashed due to such inherent illegality, yet except by issuing a show cause, nothing further was done and again the order has been passed in a casual manner. The said decision making process has no legal sanction and the same is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution. The impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from services as contained in Annexure 19 is, thus, quashed. 10. Ordinarily, the matter of this nature requires to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for a fresh consideration, but since the matter is concerned with an allegation of about twenty years ago and the respondents were already given another opportunity to proceed in accordance with law while quashing the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2920 of 1997(R) and since the respondents have again dealt with the matter arbitrarily and illegally, it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the respondents to start a fresh inquiry against the petitioner after so many years. More so, when in another proceeding the said Lal Ravindra Nath Sahdeo has been held guilty of entire defalcation and made liable for recovery of the total defalcated amount. This writ is, thus, allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to receive his salary for the period of his suspension from 28.11.1994 to 15.7.1998 after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance paid to him, as also the salary for the period between 15.7.1998 to 15.10.1999, i.e. between the two dismissal orders in view of the quashing of the dismissal orders and the petitioner shall be also entitled for the other consequential benefits. The said monetary dues must be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months failing which the unpaid amount will carry interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of actual payment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as costs." ;