IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.336 of 2001 DR. HAFIZ SYED MD. MUSHTAQUE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4/ 29/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. While the petitioner was in service, he was suspended on 30.7.1998 for reason of his conviction in a criminal prosecution relating to his private life and had nothing to do with the discharge of his official duty. When the conviction came to be challenged in the appeal and he was acquitted, the suspension was revoked by order dated 21.4.1998 and at this time no orders were passed with regard to the period of suspension. No departmental proceedings were initiated against him during the period of suspension. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to his full wages for the period of suspension after revocation. However, this was not paid to him when he came to superannuate on 30.6.2003. After his suspension had been revoked and he joined his duty, he was kept waiting for posting till 4.1.1999. After the petitioner has superannuated and preferred the present writ application in 2001 for the - 2 - claims as aforesaid, the respondents have passed an order on 3.2.2005 that there was another criminal case pending against the petitioner, while again related to his personal life having nothing to do with the discharge of his official duties as a Government servant, and that his claim for the period of suspension shall abide by the final decision that may come in the criminal case. The arbitrariness in the orders is writ large on the face of it when it is apparent from the orders dated 30.7.1988 and 21.4.1988 that the suspension was on a specified ground of concretion in an earlier case and revoked upon acquittal in that case when the ground for suspension vanished. There was no fresh order of suspension thereafter. Quite interestingly, the impugned order does not deal with this aspect at all. It is not in controversy now that the petitioner has been kept waiting for posting after suspension was revoked on 21.4.1998. The usual refrain from the authorities is that the matter is under consideration. The institution of the writ application and the passage of seven years has - 3 - not been sufficient time for them. To this Court the same is per se evidence of harassment. The petitioner is held entitled to his full wages for the period of suspension less the subsistence allowance paid to him. The Court further directs that the petitioner is entitled to be paid, full wages for the period that he was kept waiting for posting along with the interest at the rate of 5% from the date it became due till date of payment, if not already paid in which event the direction for payment of interest shall be deemed to have become infructuous. The respondent State Government is simultaneously granted the liberty to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibility on those in the Government because of whom the petitioner may have been kept waiting for posting and the consequent denial of wages to him for no fault of his. Let the arrears of the petitioner on both counts be paid to him within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC (Navin Sinha,J) - 4 -