IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4252 of 2007 Vibha Kumari Wife of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Resident of Village Dharampur, P.S. and District Vaishali … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary 2. Secretary, Primary & Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Director (Administration)-cum- Deputy Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna … … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :M/s Manoj Kumar Ambastha & Uday Pratap Singh, Advocates For the State :Mr. Avanindra Kumar Jha, AC to G.P.-18 03/ 30.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time, petitioner served as District Superintendent of Education, Buxar. By the impugned notification, bearing Memo No. 535 dated 9.9.2004, Annexure-1, she has been inflicted with punishment of censure and non-payment of full salary beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension in the light of the enquiry report dated 20.10.2003, Annexure-5 wherefrom it appears that petitioner was proceeded against for eight charges and she has been exonerated of the seven charges, but held partially guilty of charge no.8 that she accepted the joining of the two 2 teachers who were under unauthorized absence without the approval of the District Magistrate or the Education Establishment Committee. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as she has been exonerated of the seven charges levelled against her and found partially guilty of charge no.8 only, she should have been paid full salary for the suspension period. In this connection, it is further pointed out that from the enquiry report itself, it will appear that the defence of the petitioner that the joining of the two teachers was accepted under the orders of the District Magistrate, was accepted by the Enquiry Officer, yet petitioner has been held partially guilty of the said charge as the joining of the two teachers was to be accepted only for the purposes of subjecting them to departmental proceeding, but petitioner allowed them to discharge the duties of teacher after accepting their joining, which was held to be a procedural mistake and in appreciation of such fact, full salary ought to have been released for the suspension period. 3 4. As the petitioner has been found partially guilty of charge no.8 levelled against her, before proceeding to withhold the salary beyond the subsistence allowance, the authorities should have issued notice under sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code and considered her response to such notice. 5. Accordingly, I set aside paragraph no.2 of the impugned notification dated 9.9.2004, Annexure-1 directing the Director (Administration) to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why her salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension be not withheld and after considering her response, pass appropriate order in the matter. Notice in compliance of this order be issued to the petitioner as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Director (Administration) and appropriate final order be passed within a reasonable time of the receipt of the reply, which the petitioner should file within two weeks of the 4 receipt of the notice. While considering the show cause reply, the authorities should consider the fact that Collector while directing the petitioner to accept the joining of the two teachers never asked the petitioner that the joining of the two teachers is to be accepted for the limited purpose i.e. for subjecting them to departmental proceeding. If that was the intention, Collector should have clarified in his order that after accepting the joining of the two teachers, their joining report be put up for further orders. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)