IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6415 of 2010 1. Smt. Vimla Devi W/O Late Shiv Kumar Chaudhary R/O Mohalla- Mathuriya, Bagni Khand, P.S.- Laheri (Murrapur), P.O.- Biharsharif, Distt.- Nalanda And At Present Posted As Peon, Sub Divisional Office, Rajgir, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. The Additional Collector-Cum-Senior Incharge Officer District Establishment Section, Nalanda 4. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Nalanda 5. The Circle Officer, Biharsharif, Nalanda ---------------------------------- 4. 13.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2009 to the extent that it denies salary for the period of suspension notwithstanding exoneration in the departmental proceeding. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding was on account of closure of the maintenance claims filed by mother-in-law against the petitioner. Therefore it cannot be said that the suspension was wholly unjustified as it came to be made in the background of the petitioner violating the undertaking to look after the mother-in-law, a ground for the compassionate appointment. In fact the maintenance case was dismissed not on merit but for non prosecution. The Court is not concerned with what may or may not have happened in the maintenance claim. It may be that on account of the maintenance case the petitioner came to be suspended and departmental proceeding initiated. If for any reason to the satisfaction of the respondents by a speaking order they decided to exonerate the petitioner full effect has to be given to the order. Exoneration makes the suspension unjustified. The Court shall go by the express language used in the order of exoneration. If the respondents were of the opinion that they were not exonerating her but were giving her benefit of doubt in the departmental proceeding on account of failure of the maintenance case nothing precluded them from saying so in no uncertain terms in the order of exoneration. The Court is not persuaded to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents that if the order withholding salary for the period of suspension was in violation of the principles of natural justice the matter may be remanded with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Rule 11(3) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 provides that where the suspension was unjustified full pay and allowances had to be given subject to Sub-rule (8). The order dated 18.11.2009 is set aside to the extent that it denies salary for the period of suspension to be complied with within a maximum period of twof months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order . The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)