Judgment 1. The petitioner was a driver in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. He was made to face a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges. According to the charges, on 5.2.1993 the Deluxe Service Bus No. BR 1A 5093 going from Patna to Ranchi was checked by the Ranchi Division Flying Squad and it was found that three passengers travelling in the bus carried proper tickets while the remaining three passengers were unbooked. When the checking squad proceeded to issue tickets to the unbooked passengers, the petitioner who was the driver on the bus obstructed the members of the checking squad from doing so. He insulted and threatened the members of the checking squad, refused to give them the P.V.C. book and pushed them down from the bus. 2. On the aforesaid charges the petitioner was put under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. In the departmental enquiry, held ex-parte, it was found that the charges were duty established against the petitioner and on that basis he was dismissed from service by order dated, 6.9.1994. The petitioner challenged the order of his dismissal by filing a writ petition before this court, being CWJC No.1382 of 1995. 3. In that case the admitted position was that during the period of his suspension the petitioner was not paid any sub-sistence allowance. In that view, this court found and held that non-payment of sub-sistence allowance was sufficient reason preventing the petitioner from appearing before the departmental enquiry and hence, the action of the enquiry officer in proceeding ex-parte was unjustified and amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself against the charges. Accordingly, this court by order dated 7.12.1995 (Annexure 12) allowed the writ petition, quashed the enquiry report as also the order of the petitioners dismissal from service. The Corporation was, however, given the liberty to proceed in the matter afresh. The relevant observations and directions in that regard were as follows: "However, if so advised, the respondent Corporation may proceed afresh against the petitioner on the basis of the chargesheet (Annexure 3). If such a proceeding is at all initiated, it must be initiated within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the said proceeding must be completed within four months of its initiation. If such a proceeding is at all initiated, it must be initiated within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the said proceeding must be completed within four months of its initiation. If no fresh proceeding is initiated within the period aforesaid, the chargesheet (Annexure 3) will stand automatically quashed. It is further made clear that in view of the quashing of the dismissal order, the petitioner is entitled to join his service and he should be given duty which may be allotted to him by the said Corporation in accordance with law. In so far as the claim for payment of salary of the petitioner is concerned, he is not entitled to be paid his full salary but he must be paid his subsistence allowance from the date from which he was put under suspension till he is allowed to join his duties." 4. On the basis of the order passed by this court, the petitioner resumed his service on 17.1,1996. In pursuance of the liberty given by this court, the Corporation proceeded afresh in the matter and by order dated 1.4.1996 he was once again dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 22.10.1999 passed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal and the petitioner is now once again before this court challenging the orders of his dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. 5. Mr. Y.V.Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no subsistence allowance for the period of suspension or current salary was paid to the petitioner even after he was allowed to join on 17.1.1996 following the order passed by this court in the earlier writ petition. Mr. Giri contended that the second round of proceeding and the order of dismissal passed on that basis must, therefore, be held to be bad for the same reason which led to the striking down of the order of dismissal earlier passed against the petitioner. The submission, though it apparently seems to be reasonable, would appear to be without any substance on slightly deeper scrutiny. The submission, though it apparently seems to be reasonable, would appear to be without any substance on slightly deeper scrutiny. It is important to bear in mind that on the earlier occasion it was not held by this court that a disciplinary proceeding without payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was per se bad and illegal. What was held in the earlier case was that non-payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner was sufficient cause preventing him from appearing before the departmental enquiry and in that circumstance the enquiry officer was not justified in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner. It is further to be noted that while giving the Corporation the liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner, this court had not made the payment of sub-sistence allowance a pre condition for proceeding further in the matter and the two directions, one giving liberty to the Corporation to proceed afresh and the other giving it the direction for payment of subsistence allowance and salary etc. were made separately and independently of each other. It is also to be noted that this time the petitioner duly participated in the departmental enquiry and cross examined the departmental witnesses examined in support of the charge. In the second round of the departmental enquiry, therefore, there is no question of any denial of opportunity to the petitioner to properly defend himself against the charges. Nonpayment of subsistence allowance and his current salary is a separate issue and can be dealt with separately but that will certainly not affect the validity of the departmental proceeding inasmuch that did not prevent the petitioner from participating in the proceeding. 6. Mr. Giri next submitted that in the second round of proceeding the enquiry report was submitted on 27.2.1996 although the petitioner cross examined the two departmental witnesses on March 11 and 13, 1996. Mr. Giri stated that the enquiry report forming the basis of the impugned order of dismissal was, thus, submitted even before the petitioner cross examined the witnesses examined in support of the charge. In order to verify the statement made by Mr. Giri I called for the records of the proceeding from the Corporation and examined those records for myself. Mr. Giri stated that the enquiry report forming the basis of the impugned order of dismissal was, thus, submitted even before the petitioner cross examined the witnesses examined in support of the charge. In order to verify the statement made by Mr. Giri I called for the records of the proceeding from the Corporation and examined those records for myself. It is true that the enquiry officer initially submitted a report on 27.2.1996 but when it was placed before the disciplinary authority he pointed out that the report was made without giving the delinquent an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and he accordingly remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer. It was thereafter that the petitioner was called in the departmental enquiry and he cross examined the departmental witnesses on March 11 and 13, 1996 and then an enquiry report dated 15.3.1996 was submitted holding that the charges were duly established against him. On 20.3.1996 he was given a second notice enclosing copies of the enquiry report and statements of witnesses and asking him to show cause against the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner gave his reply to the second show cause notice on 30.3.1996 and after taking into consideration his reply the order of dismissal was finally passed on 1.4.1996. I, therefore, see no merit in the second submission made by Mr. Giri. 7. Learned counsel then submitted that the appellate authority while confirming the order of the petitioners dismissal from service also relied upon the statement of one Maruti Tiwary who was examined as a witness in the first round of departmental enquiry and the appellate order stood vitiated for that reason. I am unable to accept this submission either. I have gone through the appellate order from which it appears that before the appellate authority the petitioner was represented by a lawyer. The appellate authority heard arguments at length on behalf of the petitioner and he then passed a detailed order meeting all the points raised in support of the appeal. On a perusal of the appellate order I am satisfied that it does not suffer from any infirmity and warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 8. I, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. On a perusal of the appellate order I am satisfied that it does not suffer from any infirmity and warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 8. I, therefore, see no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The Corporation is, however, directed to pay all admitted dues of the petitioner including his subsistence allowance and salary as directed earlier by this court in the judgment and order dated 7.12.1995 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1382 of 1995.