IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12397 of 2011 Kaushal Kishore Son of Late Ram Lakhan Das, Resident of village- Muktadpur,P.S.-Mahua, District-VAISHALI. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan,Patna. 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Koshi Yojna, Saharsha, District-Saharsha. ……… Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 04.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing the order of dismissal from service contained in Memo No.989 dated 08.2.2008 issued by the Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna by which he has been dismissed from service and further he has been held not to entitle any further payment for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was suspended in the year, 2003 and no subsistence allowance was paid till 2006 .He submits that during the period of suspension of about five years, he has been paid subsistence allowance only for a period of six months. He submits that the order of termination was bad on the ground that due to non payment of subsistence allowance and he was not able to appropriately defend the case and in view of the fact that the charges, 2 were not so grave, he had been dismissed from service. He also points out that in the recommendation made by the Enquiring Officer dismissal from service was not contemplated or recommended. The procedure adopted did not satisfy the legal requirement before passing the final order for dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the effect that he has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.1 but till date no order has been passed. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court feels that the punishment of dismissal may be a bit too harsh. However, this is within the domain of the Appellate Authority to take a decision with regard to the quantum of punishment. Since the matter is pending before the Appellate Authority, who has to take a final decision, this Court does not want to comment or make any positive observation. Let the Appellate Authority take a final decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to submit a detailed representation in support of his defence and if he wants for perusal either by himself or through his Counsel, the same shall be afforded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the order impugned, the subsistence amount has not been paid fully .If this be the position then the respondent no.2 shall ensure that the entire arrears of subsistence allowance is paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order upon him. 3 The writ petition stands disposed off. Sudha - (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)