IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1790 of 2010 1. MUNDRIKA CHAUDHARY S/O SHRI MUNESHWAR CHAUDHARY R/O MOH- KRISHI NAGAR, P.S SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS OLD SECRETARIAT, BUILDING PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, OLD SECRETARIAT, BUILDING PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, TO GOVT. IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, OLD SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL ----------- 2. 03.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the State on 26.7.2010. The same is not available on record. The Court therefore requested Counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. The office is directed to trace the counter affidavit and place the same on record. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 18.5.2006. Three charges were framed against him in the departmental proceedings, one of which related to the institution of the vigilance case against him also. In the vigilance case he has been discharged on 11.2.2010. The aim and purpose of a departmental proceeding and a criminal charge remain entirely different issues. Be that as it may, from the counter affidavit of the respondents it is clear that the enquiry report in the departmental proceeding has been submitted on 30.4.2008, second show cause notice issued on 20.11.2008 duly replied on 6.1.2009. The matter is now pending for final decision by the disciplinary authority. In the entirety of the facts, this Court is satisfied that there is no justification for such prolonged suspension in light of the subsequent developments noticed above. The suspension of the petitioner is set aside by the present order with effect from today. In what manner the period of suspension has to be treated shall be decided by the disciplinary authority in the final order to be passed by him in the departmental proceedings. The respondents, as prayed, are also directed to decide the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of subsistence allowance after a period of one year in accordance with Rule 10 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. This Court further considers it proper to direct that the disciplinary authority shall finally conclude the departmental proceedings itself expeditiously within the same period. The writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)