Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner assails the order dated 11.8.99 at Annexure 2 by which he has been dismissed from service with retrospective effect from the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.11.1990. 3. The petitioner while he was posted as Nazir at Chakia Block, East Champaran, was placed under suspension for certain irregularities pointed during audit with regard to a sum of Rs. 62,689.21 paise. In 1978 the petitioner was subjected to criminal prosecution for the same which after ten years resulted in his acquittal on 27.2.88. A civil suit was also filed against him which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6.7.90. It would appear that a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner when an enquiry report came to be submitted allegedly against him followed by his dismissal. The petitioner also, preferred a review petition against the same. The matter travelled to this Court in CWJC No. 9472/92. On 2.1.1995 the writ application was allowed for reasons of alleged procedural impropriety in the conduct of the proceedings, with a liberty and direction the respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner. The order of this Court in the aforesaid writ proceeding would reveal that the records of the departmental proceeding, though summoned by the Court, were not presented. 4. The respondents then initiated fresh departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner assails the fresh proceeding on the same ground as in the previous writ application and the procedural impropriety in the conduct of the proceeding. It is asserted that no documents were supplied to him. He was never asked to appear before the Conducting Officer, adduce evidence etc. No witnesses were examined or documents exhibited to prove the charges. No dates were fixed in the proceeding. Copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and neither was he asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. In the aforesaid background the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service with retrospective effect from 30.11.90 came to be passed. 5. In the present proceeding, alike the earlier one, despite two adjournments the respondents failed to produce the records of the departmental proceedings. Even today learned Counsel for the State sought to seek further adjournment which the Court declined. 6. 5. In the present proceeding, alike the earlier one, despite two adjournments the respondents failed to produce the records of the departmental proceedings. Even today learned Counsel for the State sought to seek further adjournment which the Court declined. 6. The counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents was found to be completely vague by this Court, in the background of the factual assertion by the petitioner. This was the reason that the original records of the departmental proceedings had been summoned. 7. In the aforesaid background this Court arrived at the conclusion, from the impugned order at Annexure 2, that the same has been passed in pursuance of departmental proceeding conducted in violation of the established procedure, details of which have been discussed above. The impugned order would further make it apparent that no copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and no second show cause notice of the proposed punishment was given to the petitioner. This would be a mandatory requirement of law. The judgment reported in 1993(4) SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. vs. B. Karunakar & Ors) may conveniently be referred to in this regard. This Court further finds that the impugned order of termination is retrospective in nature. This is clearly impermissible in law, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R. Jeevaratnam vs State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 951 followed by a Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1999(1) PLJR 69 (Sadanand Ram vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) 8. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Annexure 2 stands quashed.