IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10950 of 2003 VIJAY SINGH S/O Late Bishwanath Singh Resident of Village & P.O. Gopalpur, P.S. Naya Gaon, District Saran. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 3.The Block Development Officer, Dighwara Block, District Saran at Chapra. 4.The Additional Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar Patna. 5.The District Panchyat Raj Officer, Saran at Chapra. ----------- 5 13/1/2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application to the following effect; “that this writ petition is being file for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.5.2003 passed by the District Magistrate Saran at Chapra as well as the order dated 5.6.2003 passed by the Block Development Officer, Dighwara Block and after quashing both the orders the Respondents may be directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the suspension period between 8.4.92 to 3.12.96 and be further pleased to pass an appropriate writ or writs direction or directions as your lordships may deem fit and proper” some how overlaps his prayer made in his earlier writ application, C.W.J.C. No.2382 of 2003, wherein this Court by order dated 25.4.2003 had given liberty to the petitioner to raise all possible plea for claiming any due amount of salary, emoluments and retirement benefits by filing a representation to the competent authority of the Finance Department. In fact, it would appear that the State Government by order dated 14.11.2003 had also passed certain orders wherein the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period 8.4.1992 to 2 21.12.1996 beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was negatived on the ground that the charges framed against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding were found to have been proved. Counsel for the petitioner in fact has also assailed the order of punishment only to the aforementioned extent of depriving him with the salary for the period of suspension beyond subsistence allowance by taking a plea that it is in violation of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. Strictly speaking, when the Collector of the district being the disciplinary authority had himself passed an order of punishment and the petitioner was inflicted with an order of punishment for temporary embezzlement of government fund, it must be held that the amount of salary not paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension i.e, 8.12.1992 to 2.12.1996 was by way of punishment, inasmuch as, one of the permissible punishment is also suspension. It, however, appears that the said order of punishment was passed by the Collector of the district without affording an opportunity of hearing. Any order of punishment inflicting against the petitioner could have been passed only after compliance of principles of natural justice. Therefore, even if enquiry report was utilized by the Collector of the district for the purpose of passing the order of punishment, the collector of the district was required to give a copy of the enquiry report and also communicate it to the petitioner that for the said charges proved the petitioner could have been subjected to certain order which could have effect of recovery 3 from the amount payable to the petitioner. Such recourse, however, was never taken by the Collector of the district and in fact the departmental proceeding against the petitioner which was initiated in the year 1992 had continued even after retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2000. The impugned order, in fact, came to be passed on 28.5.2003 and 5.6.2003, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was subjected to recovey of Rs.67,883/- in addition to denial of salary for the period of his suspension, i.e. 8.12.1992 to 2.12.1996. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Collector of Saran district to reconsider his decision as with regard to denial of payment of salary for the period of suspension and to expedite the matter the petitioner is given liberty to approach the office of the collector by filing a representation claiming as to how he should not have been subjected to recovery of government amount allegedly said to have been temporary embezzled by the petitioner and further as to why he should not have been deprived of his salary beyond subsistence allowance. Once such representation is filed by the petitioner the Collector of the district will pass an appropriate order within six months of the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and in the event the Collector of the district would find the petitioner entitled for any further payment, the same shall also be extended to the petitioner within a period of one month of the said order. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha,J )