ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner who was working as Correspondence Clerk in the Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur has challenged the order of dismissal dated 19.11.1999 passed by Government of Bihar, Water Resources Department, contained in Annexure 18. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Indian Army on 17.2.1969. He suffered some disability in 1971 Indo Pak war. As per the Government scheme, the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondence Clerk at Chapra. In 1993 he was transferred and posted in same capacity in Irrigation Division, Bhagalpur. On 16.10.1995 two charges were framed. The first charge was with regard to assault on a senior on 6.8.1993. The second charge alleged that petitioner did not report at the head quarter during the period of suspension. The petitioner submitted his show cause and participated in the departmental proceeding. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked on 14.6.1995. An enquiry report was submitted on 1.8.1996. 3. The Government not being satisfied with the procedure adopted in the departmental proceeding, ordered for de novo enquiry on the same set of two charges. A fresh opportunity was given to the petitioner to file his show cause reply. The conducting officer in his report exonerated the petitioner of charge no. 1. However, the enquiry officer found him guilty of charge no. 2. The disciplinary authority by order dated 19.11.99 contained in Annexure 18 passed order of dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order in appeal, which was rejected on 18.3.2010. 4. The petitioner moved this court in CWJC No. 7033/2010. As the pleadings were not proper, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move afresh, as such the present writ. 5. The petitioner states that the dismissal order has been founded on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner did not report at the head quarter during the period of suspension period in violation of the Government directives. Secondly, even after revocation of suspension the petitioner did not submit his joining for four years. Learned counsel submits that the second ground on which the petitioner was dismissed did not form part of the supplementary charge dated 26.11.1996 framed against him. 6. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was found guilty of charge no. Secondly, even after revocation of suspension the petitioner did not submit his joining for four years. Learned counsel submits that the second ground on which the petitioner was dismissed did not form part of the supplementary charge dated 26.11.1996 framed against him. 6. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was found guilty of charge no. 2 in so much so he did not report at the head quarter despite directives of the superior authorities during the period of suspension. 7. I find that two charges as discussed above were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges. The first conducting officer submitted his report. The department not being satisfied with the procedure adopted in the enquiry directed for de novo enquiry. The same charge also formed part of the de novo enquiry. The petitioner was granted opportunity to file show cause reply which he did. The enquiry officer in the report did not find the first charge to be well founded. However, he found that the petitioner did not report at the head quarter as instructed during the period of suspension. The enquiry officer found the said charge to be proved. The department was at liberty to have awarded an appropriate punishment with respect to charge, which stood proved. However, this has unfortunately been missed. 8. The order of punishment has taken into account another allegation / charge that the petitioner did not report for duty for four years even though the suspension order was revoked. The said allegation did not form part of the supplementary charge sheet. The department ought not to have taken into consideration the second allegation or charge while passing order of punishment as it would amount to punishing a person without affording an opportunity of hearing in violation of principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. As a result, the order of dismissal dated 19.11.1999 is set aside. As the petitioner has retired, the matter cannot be relegated to the department. However, the respondents would be at liberty to continue with the instant proceeding as one under rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for taking appropriate action in the light of the enquiry report and materials on record. As the petitioner has retired, the matter cannot be relegated to the department. However, the respondents would be at liberty to continue with the instant proceeding as one under rule 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 for taking appropriate action in the light of the enquiry report and materials on record. It is expected that the proceeding would conclude within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after providing due opportunity to the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is disposed of.