IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11097 of 2001 RAMDEO PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 22-9-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. Petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding on account of certain charges and was also placed under suspension since 16-12-1995. After an adverse enquiry report, petitioner was given an opportunity of filing second show cause vide letter dated 19-6-1997 (Annexure-3) . After considering petitioner’s second show cause he was awarded minor punishments and it was also decided that for the suspension period he would not be paid anything beyond subsistence allowance. A plea was taken on behalf of petitioner that although annexure-3 mentions that enquiry report is enclosed with the second show cause notice, no such enclosure was actually given to the petitioner. In reply the respondents have reiterated that the enquiry report was enclosed with the second show cause notice. Annexure-4 is reply of the petitioner to second show cause notice and in that he has not made any such grievance that the enquiry report was not enclosed with the notice. In that view of the matter the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid ample emphasis on the fact that petitioner was under suspension since 16-12-1995 till his suspension was quashed by order dated 11-4-2000 contained in - 2 - Naresh annexure-5 and because of the impugned order he would not receive anything beyond subsistence allowance for such a long period. Although second show cause notice was issued on 19-6-1997 but still the respondents took a long time to pass final order awarding minor punishments. In view of order of this court dated 11-4-2000 ( Annexure- 5) the suspension of the petitioner stood revoked with effect from that date itself and hence petitioner cannot be denied salary for the period after 11-4-2000 on the ground that he was under suspension. So far as earlier period is concerned, the matter of suspension was subjudice before this court and ultimately the suspension order was quashed with effect from a particular date and therefore, the respondents cannot be held liable to pay full salary for the period of suspension when some punishments have been awarded to the petitioner and it cannot be said that suspension was fully unjustified. In the facts of the case, this court is not persuaded to grant any relief to the petitioner only because the suspension was continued for about four and half years. On merits the order awarding punishments to the petitioner is not found to be bad in law or on fact. In the result the writ petition is found to be without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) - 3 -