JUDGMENT By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the impugned order contained in Memo No. 269/A dated 03.05.2003, Annexure-18 passed by the respondent-Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. 3. Incidentally, it is relevant to point out at the out set that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna the respondent no. 1 had initially been represented in the instant proceeding. However, during the course of proceeding it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel earlier representing respondent-BSRTC that files concerning BSRTC were handed over to the counsel representing the State of Jharkhand in view of the communication dated 23.08.2012 contained in Memo No. 992 issued by the Secretary-cum-Transport Commissioner, State of Jharkhand. It was also informed that in view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7290 of 1994 dated 12.08.2008, a resolution dated 28.02.2009 contained in Memo No. 176 was issued by the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand whereunder it was indicated that the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna, however, did not remain inter-State corporation in terms of the Government of India Notification No. 1127 dated 18.02.2003 w.e.f. 30.06.2004. Therefore, liabilities of the Corporation for the period 15.11.2000 to 30.06.2004 would be that of the State of Bihar/the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation while the State of Jharkhand would bear liability of the said Corporation and the employees, who come within the State w.e.f. 01.07.2004. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State of Jharkhand that the petitioner was dismissed on 03.05.2003 and could have reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004 i.e. before 30.06.2004 for which period BSRTC was liable. 5. In such circumstances, this Court found it desirable to issue notices upon the respondent-the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna and its officials vide order dated 01.05.2013. However, despite such notices having been issued under registered cover with A/D and time having expired for return of such acknowledgment, no one entered appearance on their behalf. Therefore, notices on the concerned respondents were treated to be validly served. The matter has been pending since the year 2003. In such circumstances, the case has been heard ex-parte against the BSRTC and its other officials. Therefore, notices on the concerned respondents were treated to be validly served. The matter has been pending since the year 2003. In such circumstances, the case has been heard ex-parte against the BSRTC and its other officials. However, the State of Jharkhand is represented through its counsel during the course of proceeding of the case. It is also necessary to state that in the instant case, no counter affidavit has been filed on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 6. In the aforesaid background, after hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand, the case is being decided today. 7. The facts of the case as are narrated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner show that it has a chequered history. The petitioner was a Time Keeper under the respondent-BSRTC, who was placed under suspension from 06.03.1999 vide Annexure-1 for certain alleged disobedience of the orders of respondent no. 6, the then Divisional Manager, Ranchi under the BSRTC. He was served with a charge sheet on 18.11.1999, Annexure-2 which inter alia alleged acts of disobedience of the orders of Divisional Manager during the course of checking in the main bus depot, Ranchi on 05.03.1999. It was alleged that on being called three others Time Keepers had appeared but the petitioner despite being in his office did not respond to the orders of the superior. However, another allegation was made in the charge sheet that after the petitioner's suspension, he indulged in exerting pressure on the Divisional Manager concerned by going to his residence with anti social elements on 09.03.1999 at 8.15 P.M. and giving him threats in a state of intoxication. The petitioner furnished his reply to the said allegation vide Annexure-3 dated 25.11.1999. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 04.12.1999 after conducting the enquiry holding the charges not proved against the petitioner. No action was being taken on such enquiry report neither the petitioner was being exonerated. He, therefore, preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1425 of 2000(R). 8. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition took a plea of non-acceptance of the enquiry report. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.01.2001, directing the respondents to pass final order by 03.03.2001 failing which the order of suspension would stand vacated by 04th March, 2001. 9. 8. The respondents in the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition took a plea of non-acceptance of the enquiry report. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 30.01.2001, directing the respondents to pass final order by 03.03.2001 failing which the order of suspension would stand vacated by 04th March, 2001. 9. According to the petitioner, thereafter, on 07.02.2001 itself Enquiry Officer submitted his second enquiry report, which led to issuance of 2nd show cause notice on 24.02.2001 without enclosing the enquiry report. The petitioner objected to it and later on was served with an enquiry report on 02.03.2001. He responded to the same on 08.03.2001 vide Annexure-7. The petitioner was thereafter imposed with a punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 14.03.2001, Annexure-8 with effect from the date of issuance of the order. The said impugned order was challenged in W. P. (S) No. 4767 of 2001. The said writ petition was contested by the respondent-BSRTC on merits as well. However, the said writ petition was allowed by quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 14.03.2001 as also the second enquiry report dated 24.02.2001 with a liberty to the respondent to act in accordance with law. The said judgment is annexed at Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Learned Single Judge of this Court on the said occasion found that the conduct of the second enquiry on the same charges by the respondent was without jurisdiction and therefore, they were directed to act in accordance with law from the stage of submission of report of the first enquiry officer strictly, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.R. Dev, reported in A.I.R. 1971 SC 1447. 10. The respondent-BSRTC went in appeal being L.P.A. No. 365 of 2002, which was disposed of on 17.12.2002 (Annexure-10) with some modification in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge by giving liberty to the respondent to appoint another enquiry officer and conclude the proceeding positively by 30.04.2003. The petitioner was also directed to co-operate in the conduct of the said enquiry. 11. On appointment of third Enquiry Officer by the respondent, the petitioner appeared before him and also made representation to examine certain witnesses. He also made request for payment of certain arrears of salary in view of the earlier judgment dated 29.04.2002. The petitioner was also directed to co-operate in the conduct of the said enquiry. 11. On appointment of third Enquiry Officer by the respondent, the petitioner appeared before him and also made representation to examine certain witnesses. He also made request for payment of certain arrears of salary in view of the earlier judgment dated 29.04.2002. The petitioner also objected to the conduct of the enquiry proceedings taking a plea that certain documents also, which were relevant for consideration of the charges and the petitioner's defence were required to be adduced. However, the third Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.04.2003, vide Annexure-15. He observed in his enquiry report that the delinquent employee is not fully guilty of the alleged charges. The disciplinary authority-cum-Administrator, BSRTC chose to issue 2nd show cause notice proposing major punishment by giving reasons disagreeing with the third enquiry report dated 22.04.2003, Annexure-16. The copy of the enquiry report was also furnished along with the same. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.04.2003, vide Annexure-17 whereafter the impugned order of termination has been passed on 03.05.2003 by the Administrator, BSRTC-cum-Disciplinary Authority (Annexure-18). 12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent no. 6 being the then Divisional Manager, Ranchi had also been proceeded in a departmental enquiry initiated on 31.03.2000 for two charges which inter-alia contained several incidences of his misconduct. One of the misconduct was also in relation to the initiation of action with an ulterior motive against the present petitioner, who was stated to have been diligent employee and who had received appreciation earlier. The said proceeding ended in a punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 25.03.2003 passed by the same Administrator, A. K. Upadhayay, which is annexed as Annexure-19 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the petitioner on 29.09.2004. It has been submitted that the order of punishment against the respondent no. 6 has been passed prior to the impugned order of punishment, which is dated 03.05.2003 and still the respondent-Disciplinary Authority had chosen to inflict the maximum punishment of dismissal from service and that to from the retrospective date. 13. It has been submitted that the order of punishment against the respondent no. 6 has been passed prior to the impugned order of punishment, which is dated 03.05.2003 and still the respondent-Disciplinary Authority had chosen to inflict the maximum punishment of dismissal from service and that to from the retrospective date. 13. In the aforesaid background, the impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that it is suffering from non application of mind as it is only a repetition of reasons of disagreement shown in the second show cause notice by the Administrator without dealing with the specific reply furnished by the petitioner. It is otherwise bad in law as it seeks to operate from retrospective effect. The petitioner has also challenged it on the grounds that they are wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of a simple failure to respond to the order of the Divisional Manager on the fateful day when he had inspected the main bus depot, office at Ranchi. He has also challenged it on the ground that certain material documents were not allowed to be adduced in course of the proceeding, which has adversely affected his defence. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. Learned Senior counsel has by referring to Annexure-20, 21 and 21/A annexed to the second supplementary counter affidavit also submitted that they disapproved the whole allegation that the respondent no. 6 got issued ticket from the mobile counter because of the inaction of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004 itself after filing of the instant writ petition in July, 2003. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from various error of law as well as on facts and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind, which vitiates the conduct of the whole proceeding. It is further submitted that the chain of events, which have been narrated in the pleadings of the writ petition would show that the respondents were bent upon to impose maximum punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner after successive enquiries, in spite of the fact that this Court in the earlier round of litigation had quashed subsequent second enquiry as being wholly illegal and arbitrary. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has in support of the impugned order submitted that the entire procedure required for conduct of disciplinary authority has been followed after the order passed in L.P.A. No. 365 of 2002 by the Division Bench of this Court by appointing third enquiry officer. The third enquiry officer after giving due opportunity to the petitioner did not find all the charges to be fully proved against him. The disciplinary authority however followed the requirement of law by giving reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report and after considering reply to the 2nd show cause filed by the petitioner, has found the misconduct of the petitioner serious enough to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. It has been submitted that the petitioner not only disobeyed the order of the superior, but also had tried to exert coercion upon the said officer by approaching his residence on a subsequent date which also formed part of the charge sheet and has been proved during the course of the departmental proceeding. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. The chronology of events, which have been indicated in the pleadings of the instant petition and have been referred to in some detail in the earlier part of the judgment, disclose that the petitioner a Time Keeper under the BSRTC had initially been placed under suspension for disobeying the order of his superior on 05.03.1999 when the said respondent no. 6 had gone to inspect the main bus depot, Ranchi. The allegation related to checking of certain buses which were parked and petitioner being a Time Keeper was alleged to have failed in his duty to ensure proper movement of the vehicle in which the passengers were waiting. The said passengers were issued tickets from the mobile counter and when the petitioner was asked to respond to the order of respondent no. 6 to appear before him, he failed to do so, while other three employees including Time Keepers appeared before him. In the charge sheet, which was issued thereafter on 18.11.1999, further allegation was made that the petitioner had visited the residence of the respondent no. 6 to appear before him, he failed to do so, while other three employees including Time Keepers appeared before him. In the charge sheet, which was issued thereafter on 18.11.1999, further allegation was made that the petitioner had visited the residence of the respondent no. 6 with certain persons alleged to be anti social elements along with local M.L.A. at 8.15 P.M. at night to exert pressure and use of threat against him, which was a case of serious indiscipline and insubordination to higher officials. However, thereafter the first enquiry officer submitted a report which exonerated the petitioner being the report dated 04.12.1999. The respondents were directed to take a decision in the matter after the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1425 of 2000(R). The respondents appointed second enquiry officer, who submitted another enquiry report upon which the first order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on 14.03.2001, Annexure-8. In the second writ petition being W. P.(S) No. 4767 of 2001 preferred by the petitioner against the said order of dismissal, learned Single Judge of this Court found that the initiation of the second enquiry and furnishing of the second enquiry report were totally in the teeth of settled law. Accordingly, the impugned order of dismissal as well as enquiry report were quashed. However, liberty was given to the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and in view of the judgment rendered on the point by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the order was challenged in L.P.A., where the learned Division Bench of this Court gave liberty to the respondents to appoint third enquiry officer other than the one who was the enquiry officer at the second instance and to conclude the enquiry proceeding within stipulated period. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in the enquiry. The third enquiry again ended with a conclusion by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 16.04.2003, Annexure-15 that the charges against the petitioner are not fully established. 16. The disciplinary authority, however, chose to disagree with the same while issuing the second show cause coupled with a copy of the enquiry report. Upon submission of the petitioner reply, the present impugned order of termination from service from the back date has been passed. In between another event, which took place is the order of punishment passed against the respondent no. Upon submission of the petitioner reply, the present impugned order of termination from service from the back date has been passed. In between another event, which took place is the order of punishment passed against the respondent no. 6 by the same disciplinary authority himself on 25.03.2003, which is annexed to the first supplementary affidavit. The said respondent no. 6, Rangesh Bihari was proceeded against on several counts under two specific heads of charges. One of the charges against the said respondent also related to acting with malice and ulterior motive against the present petitioner who was said to be a diligent employee and who had also received appreciation earlier. 17. In the wake of such facts which related to the same person whose complaint was the basis for initiation of the charge sheet against the petitioner as also in the wake of the near exoneration of the petitioner in the third enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, however, chose to punish him with dismissal from service by holding that his alleged misconduct was a case of serious indiscipline and misbehavior with his superior. Apparently while disagreeing with a report of the third enquiry officer and after submission of the reply to the second show cause by the petitioner, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner though such a requirement is mandatory in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vrs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84 and also followed in subsequent judgment. Apart from that it further appears that impugned order of punishment of dismissal from service is excessive to the misconduct said to be established against the petitioner keeping into account that the same person, who was author of the complaint, the respondent no. 6 the then Divisional Manager, Ranchi had also been proceeded against and punished by the same Administrator, BSRTC on 25.03.2003 i.e. ahead of the impugned order of punishment. 18. In such circumstances, therefore, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is requirement in the eyes of law in a case of the disciplinary authority differing from the report of the enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent. 18. In such circumstances, therefore, it appears that the impugned order has been passed without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is requirement in the eyes of law in a case of the disciplinary authority differing from the report of the enquiry officer exonerating the delinquent. The impugned punishment also appears to be grossly disproportionate to the misconduct, which is said to be committed by the petitioner. The impugned order also appears to be suffering from serious error of law on the ground that it has been made effective from a retrospective date. When the earlier order of dismissal dated 14.03.2001 was quashed by this Court in WPS No. 4767 of 2001, the petitioner should be treated to have been reinstated in service. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing him from retrospective date, is bad in law. The legal position on the aforesaid issue has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 03rd March 2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 239/2003 in the case of State Bank of Patiala and another vs. Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through Lrs. 19. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and reasons discussed hereinabove, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is, accordingly, quashed. 20. However, the disciplinary authority/ Administrator, BSRTC is given liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 21. Since the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation on 31.03.2004 itself and the petitioner had remained under suspension from 06.03.1999 till the impugned order of punishment was passed, the respondent-disciplinary authority would also take a decision on the question of back wages of the petitioner for the period in question. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.