ORAL ORDER KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J - Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar in support of the application and Mrs. Nilu Agrawal for the respondent Bihar State Electricity Board (for short “the Board”). 2. Present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who, while serving the Board as Accounts Assistant, was departmentally proceeded against which culminated into an order of dismissal from service which was challenged by him in this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 9226 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure-4) and the matter on being remitted back for fresh consideration was examined by the Chairman of the Board who altered the order of dismissal into an order of discharge from service. Relevant part of the said order reads thus: “And, in compliance of decision of Hon’ble High Court, Sri Sidheshwar Prasad, Accounts Assistant (Dismissed) was heard personally by the Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board on 06.10.2008 and his appeals were taken into consideration. It was observed that there was huge defalcation of Board’s revenue at electric Supply Division, Bankipur and it was reasonably proved in the departmental proceeding that the amount was defalcated by the three Accounts Assistants avoiding the prescribed procedure of Bihar State Electricity Board Finance and Accounts Code. All such employees who were responsible were booked and proceeded with and on the ground of proved charges, were awarded suitable punishment and there is no infirmity or discrimination in Board’s decision and action. However, in view of the fact that the entire amount of defalcation has already been realized from the three Accounts Assistants and the fact they had rendered prolonged service in the Board and never subjected to misconduct before this episode, taking a lenient view in the matter it has been decided to modify, the earlier punishments awarded to Sri Sidheshwar Prasad and Sri Bhuwan Mohan Mohan Sharma and also in respect of co-proceedee Sri Shashi Kumar Singh on the theory of equity to the following extent.” 3. The petitioner was allowed post retiral benefits in the shape of payment of G.P.F. and G.S.S. but was refused Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment by order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Joint Secretary of the Board (Annexure-6). The said order has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner was allowed post retiral benefits in the shape of payment of G.P.F. and G.S.S. but was refused Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment by order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Joint Secretary of the Board (Annexure-6). The said order has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that while passing the aforesaid order dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-6), the respondent has not taken into consideration the order passed by the Chairman of the Board (Annexure-5) whereby the punishment of dismissal was converted into an order of discharge from service w.e.f. 28.12.2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the petitioner has been discharged from the service then in terms of Clause-9 of the Standing Order of the Board issued under the Industrial Employees Standing Order Act, 1946, he would be entitled to those benefits. The said Standing Order reads as follows: - “TERMINAL BENEFIT On termination of employment either due to retirement, discharge or on other ground will be paid either according to Gratuity, pension, G.P.F. Scheme or C.P.F., gratuity scheme on the option exercised by the workman after and from the date on which this modified standing order comes into effect.” 5. It is also the contention of the petitioner that Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 defines discharge which is different and distinct from dismissal or removal from service. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Board, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was departmentally proceeded against for serious charges such as defalcation and as such he will forfeit his claim for Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that reliance placed by the authorities on the provisions contained in Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 (for short “1972 Rules”) would not be appropriate since the petitioner is governed by the Bihar Pension Rules and the Standing Orders passed in this regard by the Board. It is further his contention that even if the provisions of the 1972 Rules, argumenti causa, is applicable to the case of the petitioner, yet the claim(s) of the petitioner for those reliefs cannot be denied in view of explanation appended to Rule 8 of 1972 Rules. It is further his contention that even if the provisions of the 1972 Rules, argumenti causa, is applicable to the case of the petitioner, yet the claim(s) of the petitioner for those reliefs cannot be denied in view of explanation appended to Rule 8 of 1972 Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage once again highlights the findings recorded by the Chairman of the Board as quoted hereinabove. 8. From the materials on record, it appears that the order impugned in this application dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-6) does not deal with those aspect of the matter. In fact, the said order has been passed in complete oblivion of the order passed by the Chairman of the Board on the appeal of the petitioner dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-5). Since the order does not disclose reasons in support of the order and as noticed above, the said order does not take into account the order passed by the Chairman of the respondent Board dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-5), this Court is satisfied that the said order cannot be allowed to sustain. 9. The order dated 30.8.2010 (Annexure-6) is, thus set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authorities of the Board to reconsider the claim(s) of the petitioner in accordance with law after taking into consideration all relevant facts including the order dated 31.8.2009 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent Board. It is expected that the authorities will take a decision in accordance with law within five weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.