IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.714 of 2009 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Under Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Special Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lakhisarai. …….Respondents/Appellants. Versus RADHEY SHYAM PASWAN, S/o Late Kailu Paswan Resident of Village-Nehga Shahpur, P.S.-Chheria Shahpur, District-Begusarai then B.D.O. Halsi Block, Distt.-Lakhisarai at present C.O. Kumarkhand Block, District-Madhepura. ………Petitioner/Respondent. ----------- For the Petitioner : Smt. Nivedita Nirvikar (G.P. 16) Mr. Saket Tiwary, Adv. ------------ 03. 01.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The grievance in this appeal filed by the State Government is relating to order dated 01.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6357 of 2008 whereunder the learned single Judge by revoking the suspension of present respondent, had permitted the State Government to continue the departmental proceeding. The appellant also had subsequently filed the review application which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has revoked the suspension on the ground that there was non-compliance of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that - 2 - in fact certain charge-sheet had been filed against the respondent and therefore the revocation of suspension was not proper. Even assuming that to be so, we can not issue any prejudice to the State Government was given liberty to proceed with the departmental proceeding. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent is not co-operating in the departmental proceeding. It is always open to the State Government to proceed in the departmental proceeding ex parte if the concerned respondent is deliberately not co-operating in the departmental proceeding. So far as the next contention relating to the cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) is concerned, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we feel the imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) is not justified and therefore that part of the direction dated 10.04.2007 is deleted. With the above modification in the impugned order, this appeal is disposed of. Vikash/- (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)