IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1827 of 2010 1. RAMASHISH SINGH S/O LATE HIRA LALL SINGH R/O VILL TIHERI,P.S.MASAURHI, P.O.NADAUL,DISTT-PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE PATNA 3. THE S.D.O. MASAURHI, PATNA 4. THE S.D.O. DANAPUR,PATNA 5. THE B.D.O. DHANARUA, PATNA 6. THE B.D.O. DANAPUR, PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER PATNA 8. SRI SANJEEV SINGH EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,DANAPUR CUM CONDUCTING OFFICER,PATNA ----------- 2. 5.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension and three charges framed. After consideration of his reply the suspension order has been revoked on 22.6.2009 directing stoppage of two increments with non- cumulative effect and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that the subsistence allowance was in fact sent for payment but due to technical defect in the cheque it was returned and whereafter the payment to the petitioner still remained due. He quantified the amount mention in the cheque as Rs. 53,196/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Division Bench judgment reported in 2006(4) 2 PLJR 514 (Dinesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) submits that the second punishment is contrary to the law as prior show cause notice was not given before imposition of the same as held in Paragraph 9 which reads as follows:- “9. Apart from these question, so far the main question for which this matter has been referred, is concerned, it appears that for imposing the punishment no. (iii) that the petitioner shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except the subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to give separate show cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. This part of the order, therefore, is not permissible in absence of any such notice to the delinquent employee” If the petitioner files a representation before the District Magistrate making specific assertion that not prior notice under Rule 97(2) of the Bihar Service Code was given before imposition of the second punishment in terms of the Division Bench judgment and the District Magistrate finds the assertion of facts to be correct, in that event, the second punishment shall stand vitiated and set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)