IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8698 of 1992 RAGHAV PRASAD MISHRA SON OF RAJ MANGAL MISHRA, ASSISTANT TEACHER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHEROTOLA, KUCHAIKOTE, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ….. PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDRNT OF EDUCATION,GOPALGANJ 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, KUCHAIKOTE, GOPALGANJ…………. RESPONDENTS ----------- 5 19-02-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its officials. At the relevant time petitioner was an assistant teacher in a Primary School. On account of certain allegations of indiscipline an enquiry was initiated against the petitioner leading to passing of impugned order dated 30th June, 1992 which has been appended as Annexure-14 to the writ petition. By the impugned order the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj, after considering the report of the enquiry officer held that petitioner would not be entitled for any salary for the period of suspension which is said to be from 20-12-1990 to 30-6-1992. In 2 the impugned order it has been mentioned that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty and since the petitioner had not performed duty during the suspension period hence he was not entitled for any salary for the period of suspension. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition petitioner’s representation against the impugned order contained in annexure-14 was considered by the District Magistrate, Gopalganj and rejected. The rejection has been communicated by the office of the District Magistrate to District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj through letter dated 7th September, 1993 which has been appended as Annexure-17 to a supplementary affidavit and is sought to be impugned. In paragraph-24 of the writ petition it has been specifically pleaded that no copy of the enquiry report was issued to the petitioner nor he was issued any show cause notice prior to decision contained in 3 annexure-14 and hence such decision was arbitrary and fit to be quashed. There is no counter-affidavit on record to controvert such pleading. From the submission advanced on behalf of petitioner it appears that now he has superannuated . Ordinarily, we would have remanded the matter to the concerned authority for affording hearing to the petitioner after furnishing him a copy of the enquiry report before deciding whether he should be paid any salary for the suspension period or not. However, now when 18 years have elapsed and petitioner is said to have retired, it would be a harsh order to subject him to further proceeding only to claim salary in place of suspension allowance for a period of one and half years. Hence, we do not propose to remit the matter to the authority and instead quash the orders contained in annexures 14 and 17 and direct the respondents to pay the difference between subsistence allowance and salary, 4 if it has remained due till date, to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Birendra Prasad Verma,J)