IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14835 of 2005 JAGESHWAR PRASAD CHOURWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 13.08.2008 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner has retired on 31.01.2004 from the office of the Deputy Director, Agriculture (Potato), Bihar, Patna. This application has been filed for a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 14.4.2002 to 31.01.2004 and to refix the pension and gratuity after granting increment in between the period 2002 to 2004. This relief has been brought by the petitioner in view of the fact that vide Notification No. 807 dated 26.07.2004, the Joint Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Bihar has fully exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and also ordered that the decision with regard to the period during which the petitioner was under suspension will be taken after decision of criminal case being Patori P.S. Case No. 89/98 pending against the petitioner. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing part of the order contained in Memo No. 807 dated 26.07.2004 whereby it has been directed that the decision regarding payment of salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension will be taken after decision of Patori P.S. Case No. 89/98. Petitioner while posted at Patori Block was put under - 2 - suspension vide order contained in Memo No. 2086 dated 13.04.2002 for non-compliance of the Government order and negligence in duty as well as taking part in financial irregularity. Charges were framed against the petitioner vide Memo No. 2162 dated 17.04.2002. The departmental proceeding remained unconcluded till 31.01.2004 when the petitioner superannuated from his service. The proceeding was converted under section 43b of Bihar Pension Rule and finally, the petitioner was exonerated from all charges vide order dated 26.7.2004 contained in Memo No. 807. Although the petitioner was exonerated from all charges, the order was passed that the decision regarding his suspension period will be taken after disposal of Patori P.S. Case No. 89/98. Counsel for the petitioner submits that part of the order dated 26.07.2004 contained in Memo No. 807 is not in accordance with law as once the petitioner has been exonerated from all charges, the authorities are duty bound to regularize the period during which he was put under suspension. The petitioner has now retired from the service. He has been fully exonerated from the charges, as such, the decision regarding payment of salary of the period of suspension; should have been taken under Rule 97(2) of the Bihar Service Code. In complete violation of the provision under Rule 97(2) of the Bihar Service Code, it has been ordered that decision for payment of salary will be taken after disposal of the criminal case. Criminal case and departmental proceeding cannot be equated and in that manner, the part of the order which the authority has passed is arbitrary, illegal and - 3 - must be quashed. I find that time and again, it has been decided by the High Court as well as Supreme Court that the departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding cannot be equated even though there are identical charges. Once the Government employee has fully been exonerated from charges levelled against him, Rule 97(2) of Bihar Service Code is applicable and the competent authority is required to pass specific order regarding payment to be made to the government employee. In case of exoneration from all charges, the government employee is entitled for full salary and all other consequential benefits of the service. Accordingly, part of the order contained in Memo No. 807dated 26.07.2004 regarding decision with regard to the period of suspension after decision of Patori P.S. Case No. 89/98 is quashed. The respondents are directed to take decision in case of the petitioner as directed under Rule 97(2) of Bihar Service Code. Since the petitioner has been fully exonerated, he is entitled to full salary with all consequential benefits. In that case, refixation of the petitioner’s pension and gratuity is also required. The respondents are directed to do the needful without any delay at best within eight weeks from the date of production/communication of order. This writ application is allowed. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra,J.)