ORDER : Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arbind Kumar, A.C to learned S.C. I for the respondent-State and Mr. Shishir Suman, learned counsel for the Dhanbad Municipality. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 20.03.2004 (Annexure 22) whereby it has been intimated that the petitioner has already been dismissed from service on the basis of enquiry report dated 03.11.2003. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis vide order dated 03.09.1982 and subsequently his services was confirmed in the year 1984 by Executive Officer. Since 1984, the petitioner had been working in the Dhanbad Municipality on the post of Cashier. On 19.09.1996, an F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner and other employees of the Municipality under Sections 406 and 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 19.09.1996 and departmental proceeding was also initiated against him. In the criminal case, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others and charges were also framed but vide judgment dated 20.03.2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 690 of 1996 the petitioner was acquitted from the charges. However, the petitioner, being aggrieved with the order of suspension and initiation of departmental proceeding, moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2003 with a direction to the respondent-Municipality to forthwith issue an order revoking the suspension of the petitioner and make payment of subsistence allowance in accordance with law and to conclude the departmental proceeding as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order passed by this Court. It was further observed that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid time, the said proceeding shall stand quashed and further in the departmental proceeding the petitioner shall cooperate with the Municipality and if the petitioner fails to appear in the departmental proceeding, the Municipality shall proceed ex parte and conclude the same within the aforesaid time. Against the order dated 14.08.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003, the Municipality preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 617 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2005. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not pass any finding on merits. 4. Against the order dated 14.08.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003, the Municipality preferred appeal being L.P.A. No. 617 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2005. However, the Division Bench of this Court did not pass any finding on merits. 4. From perusal of record, it transpires that enquiry report was submitted on 3.11.2003, in which the enquiry officer has recommended for dismissal of the petitioner from services and thereafter, second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 21.01.2004, upon which the petitioner brought the order dated 14.08.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003 to the notice to the Municipality, wherein the Court held that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within a period of three months from the date of passing of order by the Court, the departmental proceeding shall stand quashed, but the petitioner vide order dated 20.03.2004 (Annexure 22) was intimated that he has already been dismissed w.e.f 3.11.2003. 5. The petitioner, challegned the said order dated 20.03.2004 by way of filing the instant writ petition. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid matters, this Court vide order dated 26.02.2019 directed Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad to make an enquiry as to why the final order has not been passed till date and further to disclose the name of the responsible officers and also the action or proposed action against the erring officers. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad conducted enquiry, which has been brought on record by way of filing supplementary counter affidavit dated 11.06.2019. In the enquriy report, it has been pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad that till date no final order has been passed. The Deputy Commissioner has also pointed out the name of person due to whom no final order could be passed against the petitioner. 6. This Court vide order dated 14.08.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003, has already held that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within a period of three months from the date of passing of the order by the Court, the departmental proceeding shall stand quashed. Meaning thereby the departmental proceeding was to be concluded by 14.11.2003. 7. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since no final order has been passed within the stipulated period and even till date, the impugned order may be set aside. 8. Meaning thereby the departmental proceeding was to be concluded by 14.11.2003. 7. Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since no final order has been passed within the stipulated period and even till date, the impugned order may be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Municipality submits that in view of paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit it appears that final order has been passed but dismissal order is not traced. 9. On enquiry, this Court also took note that no final order has been passed. In this regard, law is well settled that if any order is not communicated to the petitioner it deems that there is no order passed against the petitioner. In view of order dated 14.08.2003 passed in W.P. (S) No. 351 of 2003 the departmental proceeding was to be concluded within three months from the date of passing of order but till date it appears that no order of dismissal has been passed. The Municipality treats the recommendation of dismissal of the petitioner from service in the enquiry report the order of dismissal but subsequently they issued second show cause notice. Thus, there is no order of dismissal as on today, which is observed in order dated 26.02.2019 by this Court as also in the report submitted by Deputy Commissioner. 10. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order. With the above clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, hence a direction may be given to extend the consequential benefits. 12. In the light of the above observations, the petitioner may file an representation before the concerned authority who shall consider the same and extend the consequential benefits in accordance with law.