IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16787 of 2010 SUDHIR PRASAD SINGH & ORS . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 25.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners, nine in number, working in the District Agriculture Office, Gaya are aggrieved by their common order of suspension dated 20.9.2010 on the ground for not rendering expected assistance to the team constituted for a special drive resulting in failure of the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suspension was preceded by a show cause notice dated 21.8.2010 (20.8.2010), letter No. 1611 stating that they had been directed to remain present in the office till return of the special team. Upon return of the special team at 6.00 P.M., the office was found closed and the petitioners absent. Referring to the letter No. 1611 dated 21.8.2010 (20.8.2010) appended at Annexure-7 to the writ application, it is stated that the ground mentioned in the show cause notice is non est. Letter No. 1611 contain no such directions. With regard to the second ground in the show cause notice for absence on 22.8.2010. It is submitted that it was a Sunday. 2 Counsel for the State submitted that it is apparent from the show cause notice that the petitioners were found wanting in discharge of duties and did not render necessary co-operation in execution of the special drive as mentioned in the show cause notice as also the order of suspension. The letter No. 1611 dated 20.8.2010 does not contain any directions to remain present in the office at 6.00 P.M. or after office hours. It only talks of the Constitution of a special team. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate any material from that letter sustaining the ground for suspension. In that view of the matter, the order of suspension is clearly based on a non est ground. In so far as the alleged absence of the petitioners on 22.8.2010 is concerned, that day being a Sunday is best answered by the observations of the Supreme Court in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony V. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.) contained in 29 which reads as follows:- “29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by a “suspension syndrome” and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee’s trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension. Suspension notwithstanding, non-payment of subsistence allowance is an inhuman act which has an unpropitious 3 effect on the life of an employee. When the employee is placed under suspension, he is demobilized and the salary is also paid to him at a reduced rate under the nickname of “subsistence allowance”, so that the employee may sustain himself.” The Court does not hold that a government servant cannot be asked to work on a holiday. It may be voluntary or mandatory if the circumstances be urgent and pressing. The present is certainly not one such case. An order of suspension cannot be passed as a punishment. An en-bloc suspension of nine persons in an office is bound to be counter productive to government works itself. The order of suspension dated 20.9.2010 is therefore set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)