IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6484 of 2001 DINESHWAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 05.09.2008 Heard Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The claim in this writ application is to pay full salary for certain period to be noticed hereinafter. In pursuance of what is popularly known as Animal husbandry Scam, unfortunately the petitioner who was an employee of that department had to face the ignominy of a police investigation in which he was taken into custody and remained as such from 8.2.1996 to 22.6.1996. As per the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, his name neither figured in the F.I.R. nor any material surfaced with regard to him during investigation. He was not chargesheeted. Nonetheless he was suspended from 11.7.1996 only for the reason that he was also the subject matter of investigation by the police which continued till 30.11.1997 when retired. The first period of suspension is governed by Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to anything beyond subsistence allowance which has been paid to him. The question of payment of salary for this period does not arise, In so far as the second period of suspension is concerned, which is governed by Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code, in absence of any departmental proceeding being drawn - 2 - up against him, the petitioner not even having been chargesheeted, the mere pendency of a criminal case which does not concern him, there is no justification for denying him salary for the said period. Let the salary for the period 11.7.1996 to 30.11.1997 be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of the said order. The submission with regard to his illegal confinement and whether it be illegal or not are matters to be decided appropriately in appropriate proceedings if the petitioner so chooses to enforce his remedies. pkj (Navin Sinha, J)