IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6460 of 2008 BRAJ KISHORE PRASAD, SON OF LATE GANGA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF NEW SIPAHI TOLA, P.S. K. HAT, DISTRICT PURNEA. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CIVIL COURT, PURNEA. 3. REGISTRAR, CIVIL COURT, PURNEA. 4. DISTRICT PROVIDENT FUND OFFICER, PURNEA. ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 11.5.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District and Sessions Judge, Purnea dated 19.4.2007 by which although suspension of the petitioner has been vacated on his retirement on 31.1.2003, it has also been ordered that since he has been found guilty in the departmental proceeding, the salary of the suspension period would not be payable to him. The facts of the case are that the petitioner who was a Nazir of the Civil Court has withdrawn certain amount of money for payment of salary of the employees of the Civil Court. After disbursement of the salary certain amount was left with the Nazir and he deposited it in the treasury. Unfortunately a dacoity took place during the night and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was stolen from the treasury. 2 In the departmental proceeding the petitioner was held guilty and by order dated 4.1.2007 he was asked to refund the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was also noted by the disciplinary authority that a separate order would be passed with respect to the period under which he was kept under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage he is not challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as the sons of the petitioner have already deposited sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on behalf of their father. The prayer in the writ application is restricted to the order passed vide Annexure-1. It is well settled by this Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & others, 1988 PLJR 82 that a separate notice is required to be issued before an order can be passed withholding the pay of the delinquent as contemplated under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has retired and as such in the opinion of this Court no such order could have been passed 3 by the authorities concerned. In the result, Annexure-1 is quashed. This writ application is allowed. As a consequence of the quashing of Annexure-1, the petitioner would be entitled to all pre-retiral and retiral dues. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)