AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: (1) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 30.7.1998 as communicated to the Petitioner vide. Memo No. 863/ Estt. Dated 13.10.1998 (Annexure -6) of the Respondent No. 2 whereby and where under the said Respondent has though set aside the order of punishment passed by the Respondent No. 3 as contained in his Memo No. 371 dated 4.6.1996 but has illegally restored the earlier order of punishment passed by the Respondent No. 3 dated 25.4.1992 communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 284/ Estt. dated 27.4.1992 which had earlier been set aside by the Respondent vide his order as communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 775 dated 13.7.1994, (2) For quashing the order of the Respondent No. 3 dated 25.4.1992 communicated to the Petitioner vide Memo No. 284/Estt. Dated 27.4.1992 (Annexure -2), (3) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the concerned Respondents, specially the Respondent No. 3 to: (a) make payment of full salary for the period 19.9.1988 to 25.4.1992 minus the subsistence allowance already paid while the Petitioner was under suspension. (b) the period between 19.9.1999 to 25.4.1992 be treated as the period spent on duty for the purposes of pension. (c) To allow four annual increments for the period 1988 to 1992. (d) To allow leave salary to the Petitioner for the period 19.9.1988 to 25.4.1992, (e) To re -calculate the last pay after allowing increments etc. for the purpose of pension.
(2.) THE facts in brief are stated as under: The Petitioner was working as nazir on 19.9.1988 and he was put under suspension followed by registration of P.S. Case No. 19/1989 dated 1.4.1989 and charge -sheet: was submitted. However, on a direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No. 103/92(R) the proceedings were concluded. The prosecution resulted in submission of final form which was accepted by the learned Magistrate as no case was made out. Be that as it may in the meanwhile a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and ride order dated 25.4.1992 the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment to the extent that during the period of suspension the Petitioner will not be extended anything beyond the subsistence allowance. On 30.11.1992 the Petitioner superannuated from service and Commissioner, Palamau Division, set aside the order of the D.C. Palamuu dated 25.4.1992 and remanded the matter. Upon remand the disciplinary authority, D.C. Palamau, vide its order dated 4.6.199G enhanced the punishment by directing to deduct 5% of the pension apart, from the original order, not to pay anything beyond subsistence allowance during the suspension period. This was again challenged before the learned Commissioner, which vide its impugned order dated 30.7. 1998 observed that the punishment order by the disciplinary authority on 27.4.1992 was sufficient and accordingly it recalled and modified the punishment to that extent of non -payment beyond the subsistence allowance during the suspension period.
(3.) THE learned Counsel, Mr. A.K. Mehta. has raised the following contention to support his case: (i) that it. is a case of no evidence and the same has been admitted and it is only on the basis of the show -cause filed by the Petitioner that a conclusion has been drawn and both these contentions according to him is admitted by the disciplinary authority himself in its impugned order. (ii) that in any case the direction to reiterate the order dated 27.4.1992 which was set aside is unjustified since it is a case of total non -application of mind apart from the fact that there was no fresh consideration On the issue. He has further submitted that once the order has been set aside that also on merits it should not have been reiterated. (iii) that the employer -employee relationship has come to an end pursuant to his retirement and thus in view of the Rules in particular Rule 43(b) there was no scope left for inflicting punishment thereafter.;