IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6546 of 2007 Bipin Kumar Sinha, SON OF VEDA NANDAN PRASAD SINHA, RESIDENT OF NORTH MOHAN PUR, PUNAICHAK, NEAR DEVI ASTHAN, PATNA AND AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTME4NT, GOL GHAT SUB-DIVISION, UNDER PATLIPUTRA DIVISION, PATNA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM- SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- M/S. Akashdeep, Navneet Kumar Ojha, Adevocates For the State :- Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to G.P.-17. ======== 2. 01.12.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by notification bearing Memo No. 2277(s) dated 22.2.2007, Annexure-8, whereunder his show-cause reply dated 8.12.2006, Annexure-7, submitted in compliance of the notice dated 18.11.2006, Annexure-6, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his salary for the suspension period beyond the Subsistence Allowance be not withheld, has been rejected, as petitioner has been found guilty of having issued the Measurement Book and has also proceeded for measurement, he cannot be paid full salary for the suspension period, which has been incorrectly described in the impugned notification between 6.9.1999-27.10.2000 although petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 6.4.1999 and continued under suspension till 27.10.2000. 2 3. Aforesaid notification dated 22.2.2007 is being challenged on the ground that the same is violative of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) which provides for payment of full salary for the period of suspension to the Government Servant if he is fully exonerated or his suspension is found to be wholly unjustified. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 97 of the Code the disciplinary authority is empowered to withhold such proportion of pay and allowances as the disciplinary authority considers it proper. In the instant case petitioner was found guilty of the charge of having issued the Measurement Book as also of having proceeded with the measurement without the approval of the tender by the Government and such punishment having already been approved by this Court under orders dated 28.3.2006, Annexure-4, the matter having been remanded only for issue of notice under sub-rule (3) of Rule 97 of the Code in response whereto authorities having issued notice and considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and in appreciation of the fact that petitioner has already been held guilty by the disciplinary authority of the charge have issued the notification impugned withholding the salary for the suspension period. Accordingly, I do not see any illegality in the impugned notification, however, before parting with this case I notice the averments made in Paragraph 18 of the writ petition, whereunder statement has been made that respondents granted the petitioner full salary for the period 3 between 6.4.1999-5.9.1999 which fact be verified by the authorities as such conduct of the authorities appears to be contrary to the contents of the impugned notification as thereunder in the operative portion of the notification salary of the petitioner has been withheld for the suspension period but the suspension period has been indicated between 6.9.1999-27.10.2000 although petitioner was placed under suspension for the period between 6.4.1999, 27.10.2000. In case authorities have not taken any conscious decision to pay the petitioner full salary for the period between 6.4.1999- 5.9.1999 the authorities should not only issue corrigendum but should also recover the said amount in the light of the impugned notification. 4. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)