ORDER : This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash/set aside the order contained in memo No. 3913 dated 13.08.2011 passed by the respondent no.2-The Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and also for a direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period commencing from 25th November, 2004 to 15th August, 2011. 2. The facts in brief is that the writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department on 20th June, 1987 then in the State of Bihar. After bifurcation of the State of Jharkhand, services of the petitioner were placed in Urban Development Department vide notification No. 4239 dated 14.10.2004 issued from the office of Water Resources Department. The services of the petitioner were repatriated by Urban Development Department to Water Resources Department as contained in memo No. 2398 dated 17.12.2004. The petitioner thereafter challenged the aforesaid order contained in memo No. 2398 dated 17.12.2004 by filing W.P.(S) No. 328/2005 before this Hon’ble Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 20.08.2005 and then L.P.A.588/2005 was preferred before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. The said L.P.A. was dismissed by order dated 08.02.2006 but the petitioner did not stop and filed Civil Review No. 102/2006 for recalling and setting aside the order dated 08.02.2006 passed in L.P.A.No. 588/2005 on the ground that respondents had submitted wrong fact in their counter-affidavit. The Hon’ble Division Bench did not consider the contention made by the petitioner and it stood dismissed by order dated 08.02.2007. Thereafter the litigation went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the petitioner preferred Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.07.2006. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 08.02.2007 passed in Civil Review No. 102/2006 by preferring Special Leave to Appeal No. 7733/2007. The Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court by passing following order:- “ Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any merit in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We have been informed that neither the petitioner has been paid salary since December, 2004 nor permitted to join the duty. This matter be looked into by the Department and if the petitioner does not get any relief, it will be open for him to start afresh the proceedings”. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. We have been informed that neither the petitioner has been paid salary since December, 2004 nor permitted to join the duty. This matter be looked into by the Department and if the petitioner does not get any relief, it will be open for him to start afresh the proceedings”. When the petitioner did not get appropriate response in view of the order passed by the Apex Court and on being aggrieved by the decisions of the Department, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 with certain prayers which were (i) to (vii) in number. The IIIrd and Vth prayer made in the writ application have been again incorporated in the present writ application. It appears from the order dated 15th July, 2011 passed in W.P. (S)No. 5702/2007 with Contempt Case (Civil) No. 628/2008 that certain directions were given to the writ petitioner as well to the respondents. In this context para 24 of the judgment dated 15th July, 2011 passed in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 is relevant and the same para has been relied upon by both the parties, therefore, it is required to be mentioned here-in-below: “ Be that as it may, in case the petitioner joins the duty within the aforesaid period on the place of posting given by the respondents by passing a separate order ignoring all previous orders, then the respondents may pay regular salary to the petitioner from the date of joining the duties on the said post without waiting for any other formalities. However, if the respondents want to take any action against the petitioner for his not joining the posting/duties since the year 2004, then they are free to take action in accordance with law then the payment of arrears of salary shall depend upon the result of that proceeding for which this Court is not passing any order in the present facts and circumstances as the petitioner admittedly is not working on any post. In case department is not intending to take action against the petitioner on this count within one month from today, they shall pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner within one month thereafter.” 3. In compliance to the directions given by this Court vide judgment passed in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 the respondents have accepted the joining of writ petitioner as he has joined on 16.08.2011 to his new place of posting. In compliance to the directions given by this Court vide judgment passed in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 the respondents have accepted the joining of writ petitioner as he has joined on 16.08.2011 to his new place of posting. Since the date of his joining to his new place of posting i.e. from 16.08.2011 the writ petitioner has been getting salary regularly as per the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S)No.5702/2007. 4. In this writ petition the petitioner has included his earlier grievances which were ventilated by him by filing earlier writ petitions i.e. W.P. (S)No.328/2005 and W.P.(S)No.5702/2007. Those issues have been raised again by the petitioner that he has been debarred from getting salary from 25th November, 2004 to 15th August, 2011. 5. It is contended that the respondents have taken step to comply the direction given by this Court in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 but they have committed illegality which compelled the petitioner to file present writ petition before this Court. It is pointed out that without holding any department enquiry, the petitioner has been informed vide order No. 2/Stha Muk-01/2009 dated 05.08.2011 that (i) the petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period commencing from 03.03.2005 to one day prior to joining of his new place of posting (ii) the petitioner shall not be entitled for pension or other benefits for the said period during which he remained absent and it will be considered as break in the service. 6. Learned Counsel has submitted that no charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. He has been served with a show-cause containing the previous details and allegation to which he has replied. The respondent, instead of serving charge-sheet or initiating any regular departmental proceeding passed the order impugned. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 1993(1) P.L.J.R. page 585; 2006(3) J.C.R. page 24; 2011 (5) S.C.C. page142. 7. Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that for inflicting minor punishment regular departmental proceeding is not essential as per Board Misc. Rule 168 and Rule 49 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules. The respondents have followed required rules and a show-cause was duly served to the petitioner. The reply to that show-cause given by the petitioner was duly considered and after considering all the facts and circumstances available, impugned order was passed. Rule 168 and Rule 49 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules. The respondents have followed required rules and a show-cause was duly served to the petitioner. The reply to that show-cause given by the petitioner was duly considered and after considering all the facts and circumstances available, impugned order was passed. Admittedly, for the period under challenge the petitioner did not discharge duty and therefore, his absence was considered as unauthorized absence and therefore, the respondents are justified in passing said order. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied on the judgment reported in 2013 (4) J.L.J.R. page 27. 8. I have gone through the materials placed before me including the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007. It is not disputed that the directions contained in para 24 of the said judgment has not been complied with but the question which has come up in this writ petition is that the petitioner has been debarred from getting salary for the period 25th November, 2004 to 15.08.2011. This Court in the judgment dated 15th July, 2011 passed in W.P.(S)No. 5702/2007 in para 24 has given liberty to the respondents to do following act which could be understood from the following sentences:- “However, if the respondents want to take any action against the petitioner for his not joining the posting/duties since the year 2004, then they are free to take action in accordance with law then the payment of arrears of salary shall depend upon the result of that proceeding for which this Court is not passing any order in the present facts and circumstances as the petitioner admittedly is not working on any post.” The admitted situation is that the respondents had served show-cause notice to the writ petitioner to which he replied but no regular departmental proceeding was initiated to hold the writ petitioner liable for such long absence and he has not been given opportunity to plead his defence. In view of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India, before inflicting punishment the employee has to be given opportunity to defend himself and that is the demand of principle of natural justice. In view of the series of litigations prevailing between the parties, it was desirable for the respondents to hold regular departmental enquiry to avoid all future litigations. In view of the series of litigations prevailing between the parties, it was desirable for the respondents to hold regular departmental enquiry to avoid all future litigations. Considering aforesaid view, the order contained in memo No. 3913 dated 13.08.2011 (Annexure-7) is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondents to initiate regular departmental proceeding within one month from today and the charges which the respondents may deem fit against the petitioner must be communicated to him within a fortnight and after performing all the formalities, entire exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not evade his appearance or delay the matter in disposal of the enquiry. He shall co-operate with the same so that the enquiry must be completed within the period indicated above. 10. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.