Patna High Court
Mrityunjai Prasad Singh vs Chairman Bihar Industrial Area … on 10 March, 2026
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17206 of 2013
======================================================
Mrityunjai Prasad Singh, Son of Late Anbir Prasad Singh, Resident of Ganesh
Nagar, Tatma Tola, P.S. - Khazanchi Hat, District - Purnea, Retired Assistant
Development Officer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority
(Headquarter), Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog
Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
2. The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority,
Udyog Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Udyog
Bhavan, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following relief(s):
"(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order dated 18-02-
2013 passed by the Chairman, Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority, Patna (hereinafter to
be referred to as BIADA only) in Appeal No.
03/2012, whereby he has been pleased to dispose
of the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
2/10
the order of punishment of censure upon the
Petitioner without any interference in the order of
punishment, while admitting that the another
employee should have been proceeded against for
the charges levelled against the Petitioner, and the
claim of the Petitioner for payment of back wages
for the period he remained compulsorily retired in
between October, 2007 to 19-06-2009 has been
rejected.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order contained in
Memo No. 361 dated 20-01-2012 issued by under
the signature of the Secretary, BIADA whereby it
has been communicated that the review petition
preferred by the appellant against the order of
punishment contained in Memo No. 4092 dated 28-
07-2011 has been decided to be rejected.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari for quashing of the order contained in
Memo No. 4092 dated 28-07-2011 passed by the
Managing Director, BIADA whereby the appellant
has been held guilty of charge No. 11 in the memo
of charge and he has been awarded a punishment
of censure to be entered in his A.C.R. in the period
of 2007-2009. Further, it has also been held that
the appellant will not be entitled for anything
except the subsistence allowance for the period he
remained under suspension.
(iv) For a direction to the respondent
authorities to pay the back wages to the Petitioner
for the period he remained under compulsory
retirement from October, 2007 to 19-06-2009 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
3/10
for payment of entire salary for the period the
Petitioner remained under suspension.
(v) For necessary direction to the respondent
authorities to pay the back wages to the Petitioner
along with arrears of Dearness Allowance as
admissible to the Petitioner.
(vi) For any other direction, which your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was appointed as Assistant Development Officer (Chemical) on
26.6.1978
in the erstwhile Darbhanga Industrial Area
Development Authority. With the merger of the three Industrial
Area Development Authorities of Bihar in the year 2003, Bihar
Industrial Area Development (BIADA) was formed and the
petitioner became an employee of BIADA.
4. The petitioner was proceeded against in a
departmental proceeding and by order dated 29.9.2007, 5 out of
the 13 charges levelled against him having been proved in the
enquiry, an order of punishment was passed compulsorily
retiring him w.e.f. 30.9.2007. The order of punishment of
compulsory retirement of the petitioner was challenged by him
by filing CWJC no.16950 of 2007. This case was heard along
with the batch of applications and by order dated 5.5.2009
passed in CWJC no.11196 of 2007 (Ram Pravesh Singh vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
4/10
BIADA) and analogous cases, the impugned orders in each of
the writ applications whether of termination or compulsory
retirement were set aside and the petitioners directed to be
reinstated. The writ applications having been allowed, on the
petitioners pressing for back wages, the learned Single Judge
observed that if the petitioner prefers an application for back
wages, the authorities are required to decide the same in
accordance with the settled principles for grant of back wages,
by a reasoned and speaking order after due opportunity to the
petitioner within a maximum period of eight weeks.
5. The petitioner filed an application for grant of back
wages before the respondent authorities. The joining of the
petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was once again placed
under suspension on 30.6.2009. In the departmental proceeding
that followed, by order dated 28.7.2011, an order of punishment
of censure for the period 2007-2009 was given and it was
further ordered that for the period of suspension, no other
amount except for the subsistence allowance would be payable,
however, the period of suspension shall be counted for the
purpose of calculation of gratuity and other post retiral dues.
The review preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order
dated 20.1.2012 and also the appeal preferred by him was
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
5/10
dismissed by order dated 18.2.2013 not interfering with the
order of punishment. It may be mentioned here that the
petitioner superannuated on 31.1.2012.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the order of punishment of compulsory retirement w.e.f.
30.9.2007 having been set aside by this Court by its order dated
5.5.2009 passed in CWJC no.16950 of 2007 and consequent
thereto, the petitioner having been reinstated in service, the
respondents be directed to pay the petitioner the back wages for
the period he remained compulsorily retired ie from October
2007 to 19.6.2009. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner
on the judgment in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs.
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others;
(2013) 10 SCC 324 and in the case of The Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority & Ors. vs. Subhash Singh; 2025
(4) PLJR 46.
7. In response, opposing the prayer made in the writ
application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondents that on the order of punishment of compulsory
retirement inflicted on the petitioner having been set aside by
order dated 5.5.2009 in CWJC no.16950 of 2007, the petitioner
was once again proceeded against in a departmental proceeding
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
6/10
wherein order of punishment dated 28.7.2011 came to be passed
inflicting the punishment of censure on the petitioner and that he
would not be entitled for any other amount for the period of
suspension except the subsistence allowance already paid to him
though the said period would be counted for his post retiral
dues. It is submitted that the said order of censure having been
upheld even in the review petition and the subsequent appeal
preferred by the petitioner, there is no error in the order of the
respondents denying the arrears of difference of salary to the
petitioner for the period of compulsory retirement. Reliance has
been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the
judgment in the case of The Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area
Development Authority & Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Singh &
Anr.; 2017 (1) PLJR 479.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
9. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-
BIADA having proceeded against the petitioner in a
departmental proceeding came to pass an order of punishment
dated 29.9.2007 issued under the signature of the Managing
Director, BIADA compulsorily retiring the petitioner from
service. The order of compulsory retirement was challenged by
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
7/10
the petitioner in CWJC no.16950 of 2007 which was heard in a
batch of applications and by order dated 5.5.2009 passed in
CWJC no.11196 of 2007 and analogous cases, the impugned
orders of termination or compulsory retirement in all the writ
applications were set aside and the petitioners reinstated. As
such, the petitioner herein also was reinstated. The respondents
thereafter once again placed the petitioner under suspension and
proceeded with a fresh departmental proceeding. In this
proceeding, the Conducting Officer in his enquiry report found
only charge no.11 to be proved and by order dated 28.7.2011
inflicted the punishment of censure for the year 2007-09 and
that for this suspension period, he would not be paid other
allowance except the subsistence allowance already paid though
the period would be counted for gratuity and other post retiral
dues. Even in the review petition and the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, both were rejected by orders dated 20.1.2012 and
18.2.2013 without interfering with the order of punishment.
10. It may be observed here that so far as the order
dated 29.9.2007 compulsorily retiring the petitioner is
concerned, the same was set aside by this Court vide its order
dated 5.5.2009. Even in the next departmental proceeding
started against the petitioner, on perusal of the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
8/10
punishment dated 28.7.2011, it would transpire that the
Conducting Officer in his enquiry report found only charge
no.11 to have been prima facie proved and imposed the
punishment of censure which is a minor punishment under the
CCA Rules.
11. In the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
“38.5. The cases in which the competent
court or tribunal finds that the employer has acted
in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or
the principles of natural justice or is guilty of
victimising the employee or workman, then the court
or tribunal concerned will be fully justified in
directing payment of full back wages. In such cases,
the superior courts should not exercise power under
Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere
with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc.
merely because there is a possibility of forming a
different opinion on the entitlement of the
employee/workman to get full back wages or the
employer’s obligation to pay the same. The courts
must always keep in view that in the cases of
wrongful/illegal termination of service, the
wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the
employee/workman and there is no justification to
give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings
by relieving him of the burden to pay to the
employee/workman his dues in the form of full back
wages.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
9/10
12. The first order of compulsory retirement was set
aside by order dated 5.5.2009 on the ground that in the
departmental proceeding neither a Presenting Officer was
appointed nor any oral or documentary evidence was led on
behalf of the prosecution nor was any opportunity to cross-
examine given to the petitioner.
13. In the opinion of the Court, the proceedings were
in gross violation of the statutory provisions and the principles
of natural justice and thus the order of punishment was set aside
by this Court.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
herein above, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) would be fully
applicable to the case of the petitioner.
15. So far as the judgment in the case of the
Chairman, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority &
Ors. (supra) is concerned, in the opinion of the Court, the same
is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. It is for the
reason that on the first order of punishment/compulsory
retirement having been set aside by this Court in its order dated
5.5.2009, the order of punishment dated 28.7.2011 (Annexure-
R/5) in paragraph no.4 clearly states that a fresh departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.17206 of 2013 dt. 10-03-2026
10/10
proceeding was started with Dr. Girish Kumar, Secretary,
BIADA as the Conducting Officer and Sri Rajesh Kumar, Law
Consultant as the Presenting Officer.
16. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for full back wages
for the period that he remained compulsorily retired ie from
October 2007 to 19.6.2009.
17. The respondents are directed to pay the difference
of arrears of salary for the period from October 2007 to
19.6.2009 to the petitioner after deducting the subsistence
allowance and/or any other amount already paid. The
respondents shall pay the same within a period of three months
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
18. The writ application stands allowed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 19.12.2025 Uploading Date 10.03.2026 Transmission Date
