IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16085 of 2010 PRAMOD KUMAR KAMAT . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . ----------- 2. 1.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dated 17.9.2010. The order states that against an allotment of Rs. 44.1850 crores, he made payment of Rs. 44.7000 crores. Rs. 51,50,000/- was therefore excess payment made to the contractors. The order further states that suspension was under Section 9 (1)(a) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. Charge sheet is acknowledged have been framed, served and also replied. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to urge that the order of suspension was based on non est grounds. Attacking the order on its merits by a process of reasoning, learned counsel invited the Court to assess from documents if excess payment had been made or not. It shall not be the domain of the Court at this stage to substitute its own views for that of the Government by a process of reasoning. If there is a ground for suspension, it is 2 not for the Court to examine the sufficiency of the ground. Had there been documentary evidence on record of the Government that the sanctioned amount was Rs. 44.7000 crores on the face of it, matters may have been entirely different to adjudge non-est grounds. If the petitioner is of the opinion that he does have an explanation with regard to the payments made within sanctioned amount and has represented in light thereof, the respondents are not precluded from considering his representation for revocation of the suspension in accordance with law. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)