IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10137 of 2010 ================================================== 1. NITIYA NAND SINGH S/O LATE PARASAN SINGH R/O VILL.- PAHARPUR, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, DISTT.- GAYA, AT PRESENT POSTED AS PANCHAYAT SEWAK (PANCHAYAT SACHIV), MAKDUMPUR, DISTT.- JEHANABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD (DISTRICT PANCHAYAT BRANCH) 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, JEHANABAD 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JEHANABAD 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER OF MAKDUMPUR OF RATANI, PHARIDPUR OF KURTHA OF KAKKO, DISTT.- JEHANABAD 6. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, DISTT.- JEHANABAD ============================================= 3. 05.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State despite the fact that two copies of the writ application were served in the office of the Advocate General as far back as 21.6.2010. The matter was adjourned on the previous occasion to enable the Counsel for the State to seek instructions and/or file a counter affidavit. Counsel for the State has received instructions and has assisted the Court upon basis of the same. The claim for salary of the petitioner can be compartmentalized from 2001 till his date of suspension i.e. 18.4.2008.The second part would relate from 18.4.2008 till his superannuation on 31.7.2010. If the petitioner has discharged duties in between 2001 till 17.4.2008 he is naturally entitled to his salary in accordance with law, it being his statutory right unless the respondents have any valid justification for the same with due opportunity to the petitioner for defence. In pursuance of the suspension, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is not denied on behalf of the State that in pursuance of the order of the Court in CWJC No. 10001 of 2010 on account of their failure to complete the departmental proceeding in time as observed in the penultimate paragraph of that order the respondents have now been precluded from proceeding with the departmental proceeding. The order is acknowledged to have attained finality. If the petitioner has not been subjected to a final adjudicatory order and punished in the departmental proceeding it would be a deemed case of exoneration under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. If that be the legal position there can be no justification for withholding salary of the petitioner except in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the District Magistrate, who shall grant him a personal hearing and then proceed to adjudicate the claim for salary by a reasoned and speaking order. Any material that the District Magistrate proposes to rely upon to deny salary or any part of salary, shall be duly furnished to the petitioner with opportunity to meet the same and only thereafter the matter shall be disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order. The Court expects that if the District Magistrate finds justification in the claim of the petitioner or in any part of the claim he shall proceed to pass appropriate consequential order simultaneously. Let this order be complied with in its entirety within a maximum period of fifteen days from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)