IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.393 of 2007 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9485 of 2005 =================================================== Shreepati Ram, son of late Hari Kishun Ram, resident of village-Tiwaripur, P.S.-Buxar, District-Buxar at present residing at Jha Bhawan Near Sub Post Office, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Srikrishnapuri, District-Patna(Bihar) .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Baily Road, Patna 3. The Special Officer-cum Deputy Secretary Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department of Government of Bihar, Baily Road, Patna 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Virchand Patel Path, Patna .... .... Respondents =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant: Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. D. Sanjay, A.A.G-12 Mr. Gopal Prasad Gupta, A.C. to A.A.G.-12 =================================================== 10 19-10-2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.03.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9485 of 2005 wherein the petitioner-appellant herein has chosen to question order dated 22.09.2001 as contained in Annexure-12 whereby the petitioner was awarded punishment of censure, and also order dated 26.12.2003 as contained in Annexure-14 whereby the state has refused to entertain his plea for payment of full salary for the suspension period from 27.03.1999 to 21.09.2001. The learned Single Judge 2 dismissed the writ petition on the ground that no illegality could be found in the order passed by the authorities. It has been submitted by learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that at the outset, eventhough the charges were not proved against the appellant but the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice vide annexure-10 dated 26.05.2000 disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, in the show cause there was no reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and consequently, no subsistence allowance was paid during the period of suspension. We had an occasion to go through the Annexure-12 which itself shows that the disciplinary authority has indicated the reasons for coming into such conclusion. Under the above circumstances, we are not in agreement with the contention raised by learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant with regard to none payment of subsistence allowance. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.4 in the writ petition with regard to such averments would go to show that the suspension of the appellant was revoked vide department letter no.11085 (S) dated 26.12.2003 whereby the order of 3 censure was affirmed, but however with regard to pay and allowances during suspension period it was indicated that this will be decided separately. The relevant paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition is quoted hereinbelow:- “that the suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide department- letter no. 11085 (s) dated 26.12.2003 whereby the order of censure was affirmed and regarding pay and allowances during suspension period will be decided separately and no change in subsistence allowance, but suspension period will be counted for other purposes. Accordingly after adding increment (nationally) revised pay slip no.-GE-4-PWD-R-III-12-1186-87 dated 07.01.2005 was issued and directed the petitioner to submit the bill for pre- audit. But the same has not been received in this office. As soon as the bill was received authority for arrear will be issued.” The learned Sr. counsel has argued that the decision of the disciplinary authority with regard to non-payment of the subsistence allowance during the suspension period would not enure to the benefits of the appellant. But however, in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit, we are of the opinion that the decision of the authority needs no interference at this stage for the reason that the statement made in the paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit itself indicates that suspension period will be counted for all other purposes. There 4 is no material placed before this Court by the appellant’s counsel that the appellant is furnished the revised pay slip in pursuance to letter no. 11085 (s) dated 26.12.2003. Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to delve into the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, but however we make it clear that as the appellant has not furnished revised pay slip with the concerned authorities as indicated in the letter dated 26.12.2003, liberty is given to him to submit his revised pay slip, if not already submitted, in pursuance to the letter dated 26.12.2003 and the payment should be effected as per such letter to the appellant within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observation, the L.P.A. stands disposed of. ASHWINI/- (T. Meena Kumari, J) (Vikash Jain, J)