JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. Appellant, Shradha Nand Singh preferred writ petition bearing CWJC No. 9981 of 2002 which has been allowed to a limited extent by order under appeal dated 20th February, 2009. He is aggrieved by denial of arrears of salary in spite of order of punishment dated 19.7.2002 having been set aside. He also has apprehension that in view of the text of the order under appeal in the penultimate paragraph, the authorities may treat him to have retired not on the due date of retirement but on the date of dismissal. 2. For seeking appropriate consequential relief, he has preferred L.P.A. No. 323 of 2009 whereas the State of Bihar and its functionaries have preferred the other Letters Patent Appeal challenging the setting aside order of punishment dated 19.7.2002 whereby the writ petitioner, Shradha Nand Singh was dismissed from service on the ground of certain charges allegedly approved in a departmental proceeding. 3. In case, the appeal preferred by the State is found to have merit then there would be no occasion to grant any further relief to the writ petitioner and hence wehad called the State to produce the record of the disciplinary proceeding pertaining to the writ petitioner. On going through the same and on reading the enquiry report, it is found that neither any oral nor any documentary evidence was brought on record before the Enquiry Officer to support the allegations which constituted the charges that have been denied by the writ petitioner. In such circumstances, we find no material or reasons to take a different view than that adopted by the Writ Court. Hence, the appeal preferred by the State i.e. L.P.A. No. 499 of 2009 is found to be without merits and is dismissed accordingly without any order as to costs. 4. So far as issue of consequential relief by way of back wages is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manorma Verma V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp.(3) SCC 671. In that case the Honble Supreme Court has observed that once termination is found to be illegal, the consequential order for back wages is a normal rule unless there be reasons to justify a departure from such normal course. 5. In that case the Honble Supreme Court has observed that once termination is found to be illegal, the consequential order for back wages is a normal rule unless there be reasons to justify a departure from such normal course. 5. In the present case, the Writ Court has indicated the reasons for not granting back wages by pointing out that petitioner cannot be reinstated as he has superannuated in the meantime but considering gravity of the charges and since the petitioner had not worked, the Writ Court decided not to allow the arrears of salary but it was clarified that he shall be deemed to be reinstated and to have retired from his post which he was holding at the time of his dismissal. 6. We have also considered the relevant facts and circumstances and we agree with the views of the Writ Court for the reason that the order of dismissal against the petitioner has been set aside because of procedural illegalities and not on a finding that the charges were not proved. The charges were of shortage of materials from the store worth more than Rs. 72 lacs. Ordinarily, the Writ Court should have remitted the matter to the Enquiry Officer for holding a fresh enquiry but it appears that since the writ petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, hence instead of remitting the matter and putting him to harassment after retirement, only the relief of back wages has been denied. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to grant any consequential relief to the writ petitioner by way of back wages. It is further made clear that if any claim of wages for the suspension period is still pending or is raised by the writ petitioner, the same shall be disposed of by the competent authority in accordance with law at an early date preferably within four months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order before the concerned authority. It is further made clear that the ambiguity of language in penultimate paragraph of the order under appeal is not of any substance and it goes without saying as directed by the Writ Court, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated and to have held the relevant post till he crossed the age of superannuation. 7. It is further made clear that the ambiguity of language in penultimate paragraph of the order under appeal is not of any substance and it goes without saying as directed by the Writ Court, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated and to have held the relevant post till he crossed the age of superannuation. 7. He will be entitled to fixation of pensionary benefits on that basis as per law. with the aforesaid clarification the L.P.A. No. 323 of 2009 is also dismissed but without costs.