IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13758 of 2005 2 23.10.2008 Upendra Narayan Sinha s/o late Surendra Narayan Sinha, resident of village Raghopur, PS Bihita, District Patna .... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Cum Commissioner of Irrigation Department, Bihar, Patna 2. Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department, Patna 3. Executive Engineer, Quality Control, Irrigation Department, Anisabad, Division No.1, Patna 4. Chief Engineer of Quality Control, Irrigation Deptt. Patna. 5. The Under Secretary of Irrigation Deptt. Patna. .... Respondents ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By the order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure-6), the Engineer-in-Chief (North), Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna has disposed of several issues relating to petitioner’s service period prior to his retirement on 31.7.2003. The said order discloses that on 4.3.1985 he was suspended on account of certain charges relating to misappropriation of cement belonging to the Government but released from suspension on 23.6.1987 with an order that departmental proceeding will continue against him. The order further discloses that on account of the relevant papers relating to departmental proceeding not being traceable, no progress could be made in the departmental proceeding and petitioner 2 superannuated from service on 31.7.2003. According to the first decision marked as (ka), petitioner has been allowed to retain salary which he received after suspension up to November 1985. By the second decision marked as (kha), petitioner has been allowed salary from 1.12.85 to 2.1.86 ( which was part of suspension period) only with a rider that an advance of Rs.3882.50 paise will be adjusted against the salary payable for that period. By the third and last decision marked as (ga) it has been held that on 2.1.86 while under suspension petitioner’s headquarters was fixed at Siwan and he was relieved to join that place but the available records do not show that he ever joined at that place. In spite of opportunity the petitioner did not produce any document to show that he had joined and was available since 2.1.86 till his release from suspension on 23.6.87 or at any other place. In that view of the matter, the authorities have decided against the petitioner that he would not be entitled to any salary for the said period 2.1.86 to 23.6.87. In the facts of the case, it is found that since the petitioner had been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding prior to his retirement, as per explanation (a) to the proviso to Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules the authorities could have deemed that the departmental 3 proceeding had been instituted when the petitioner was placed under suspension but the authorities have adopted a lenient attitude and have not decided to proceed in that matter. They have by the impugned order, decided to pay salary for various period when the petitioner was under suspension. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. It goes without saying that on the basis of pay scale to which the petitioner was entitled at the time of retirement his pension etc. should be determined and payment should be made to him as per law without any delay. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk