IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2932 of 2009 BIJAY SHANKAR PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 5/3/2009 Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also counsel for the State. The grievance of the petitioner as with regard to the order of suspension dated 1.7.2008 are in three folds; Counsel for the petitioner first contends that the order of suspension is based on nonest and non existing materials, in as much as, there is nothing to show that there was any role of the petitioner in the alleged misconduct for which he is being subjected to a departmental proceeding. It is well settled that this Court at the initial stage of suspension will not go into correctness of the allegation because that job is exclusively to be performed in a departmental proceeding by the enquiry officer. It is not in doubt and in fact the order of suspension will itself indicate that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against the petitioner, in as much as, it was 2 mentioned therein that the charges would be issued seperately. That being so, this Court would find it difficult to interfere with the order of suspension, on the ground that the charges against the petitioner are not established. Charges against the petitioners in the departmental proceeding were not framed, which is the second grievance of the petitioner, and as such this issue is not only premature but also cannot be prejudged by this Court. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner would then a grievance that the charges in the departmental proceeding pertaining to order of suspension dated 1.7.2008 has not been framed as yet. Counsel for the State on taking instruction has submitted that charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 19.2.2009. In the opinion of this Court once charges have already been framed, it will be for the petitioner to file his written statement in his defence, whereupon enquiry can be completed. If the petitioner files his written statement of 3 defence within a month from today an appropriate decision in the departmental proceeding including final order must be taken within six months of the filing of written statement of defence by the petitioner. His third and the last grievance against the order of suspension is that he has not been paid subsistence allowance pursuant to the order of suspension dated 1.7.2008. The explanation given by the Additional Advocate General No.11 in this respect is that since the petitioner was placed under deputation in the Muzaffarpur Regional Area Development Authority, his salary statement, i.e, L.P.C. has to be obtained from the said authority and as the same has not been made available till now to the State Government in the parent department, the amount of subsistence allowance has not been paid. In the opinion of this Court, the Vice-Chairman, Muzaffarpur Regional Area Development Authorities should have issued the L.P.C. as soon as the petitioner was placed under suspension since the 4 petitioner was on deputation in the said authority. That being so, respondent no.5, the Vice Chairman, Muzaffarpur Regional Area Development Authorities or its successor body or authority is hereby directed to send the L.P.C. of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, whereafter subsistence allowance of the petitioner, both arrear and current should be paid to the petitioner in the next four weeks. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar