- (1.) THE respondents -State has filed this review application seeking review of the judgment dated 13.9.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 whereby learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with certain observations and directions. For better appreciation, the judgment dated 13.98.2006 is quoted herein below: - "Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction to take decision on the enquiry report, already furnished by the enquiry officer in respect to the enquiry, initiated against him during his service, to the disciplinary authority and to pay him the full salary for the period of suspension as also the increments, withheld on account of pendency of departmental proceedings. Further prayer is made for release of retiral benefits. It is an admitted case that the petitioner retired from service on 1st March, 2001. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated before his retirement and enquiry report was submitted on 27th October, 2004. It is settled law that no disciplinary proceeding can be continued after the retirement of a government servant, unless the rule so specifically permits. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena Vrs. Board of Directs, O.S.F.C., reported in (1999)3 SCC page -666, has held as under: "6. It will be noticed from the abovesaid regulations that no specific provision was made for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in the departmental enquiry nor was any provision made for continuance of the departmental enquiry after superannuation.
(2.) IN view of the absence of such a provision in the abovesaid regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the appellant had retired from service on 30.6.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the appellant. In the absence of such an authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement.  In view of the ratio, laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the respondents are not entitled to initiate any action against the petitioner in so far the disciplinary proceedings are concerned. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to get all the retiral benefits. However, the period of suspension of the petitioner is required to be decided by the respondents. Let the decision be taken by the respondents in respect to the period of suspension of the petitioner within a period of two months and consequently order be communicated to the petitioner. His retiral benefits be also settled and the increments, withheld during the disciplinary proceedings, be also released forthwith. Let the retiral benefits be determined and paid to the petitioner within a period of four months. This petition stands disposed of accordingly.  Learned counsel for the State submitted that while passing the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge has not considered the earlier judgment dated 04.12.2001 passed by another Bench in W.P. (S) No.3032 of 2001 filed by the same petitioner.
(3.) IN the earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No.3032 of 2001, the petitioner had challenged the order as contained in Memo No.139 dated 23rd January, 2001 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad under Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules whereby payment of retiral benefits was withheld. While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single after holding that the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to withhold the total retiral benefits, allowed the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. After about four years, the petitioner filed W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 wherein only prayer that was made by the petitioner was for a direction to the respondents to pass final order on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after holding the departmental proceeding. Prima facie it appears that the learned Single Judge without going into the earlier judgment passed in W.P. (S) No.3032 of 2001, which was annexed as annexure -1 to the writ petition, held that the respondents -State was not entitled to initiate any departmental proceeding. Prima facie, therefore, it is evident that there is gross error on the face of the record. The impugned judgment passed in W.P. (S) No.2196 of 2006 is fit to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the State submitted that because of the impugned judgment dated 13.9.2006, final decision has not been taken.;