IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1096 of 2009 SHEO KUMAR PRASAD Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS. ----------- 2/ 21/04/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Board. The contention of the petitioner is that he is under suspension since 12.10.2006. Departmental proceedings are yet to be initiated and that no enhancement of the subsistence allowance has also taken place in accordance with the Rules. Learned counsel for the Board points out that the suspension is on the grounds of unauthorized absence for about a year. Suspension is not a punishment. The need for suspension is felt to avoid embarrassment to the employee in the conduct of the departmental proceeding and prevent interference with administrative matters. A prolonged order of suspension is difficult for a Court to uphold unless the allegations be gross when the employer has the discretion to continue with an order of suspension and the Court also may not interfere. Presently it does not appear to be a gross case. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that there is no justification for prolonged suspension of the petitioner, 2 as claimed by him, since 12.10.2006. The Court arrives at this finding on the presumption urged by the petitioner that he is not at fault in any manner for this prolonged suspension. If that be correct, a fact which is required to be verified from his records, this Court directs that the Board shall re-consider the issue of continued suspension of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid discussion and take a final decision thereupon within a maximum period of three weeks with regard to the issue of suspension from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)