IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2085 of 2009 Manzoorul Hassan Ansari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand. The writ petition was filed on 10.2.2009 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General for the State of Bihar and also on the counsel for the State of Jharkhand. While the State of Jharkhand has filed its counter affidavit, nearly two and half years has not been considered sufficient by the State of Bihar to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. The petitioner who is stated to have hold the post of Junior Engineer in the Chaibasa Sub-Division prior to the reorganization of the State was placed under suspension on 21.6.1988 for a missing tractor of the department alleging conspiracy against him. A first information report lodged against him led to a criminal prosecution in which he has been acquitted by judgment and order dated 29.5.1998 of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in G.R. Case No. 446/85/T.R. No. 85 of 1998 arising out of Munsif Chaibasa P.S. Case No. 97 of 1985 under Sections 409, 407 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. A copy of the judgment was placed by 2 the counsel for the petitioner during submissions. Simultaneously, the petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding. It concluded with a finding of guilt whereafter his suspension has been revoked on 16.6.1993 . The order stated that the punishment would be pronounced later. The aforesaid events took place in the unified State of Bihar. The relevant date for reorganization of the State is 15.11.2000. Thus there was more than adequate time and opportunity for the unified State of Bihar to pass appropriate punishment order after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings and even after the order revoking suspension dated 16.6.1993 in pursuance of the conclusion of the proceedings. No orders have been passed till date and the petitioner is stated to have superannuated in 2009. From the judgment of the criminal Court it appears that the prosecution failed to prove the charge on merit much less even on suspicion of conspiracy. If the petitioner had been found guilty in the departmental proceedings the order of punishment was required to state in context of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code with regard to the status of the petitioner in the interregnum along with final punishment. The Court therefore holds that the agony which 3 the petitioner underwent by suspension, institution of a criminal prosecution, and indictment in the departmental proceedings all are considered as sufficient punishment for him. But in view of his acquittal in the criminal case on merits and the complete absence of the State of Bihar to pass any order of punishment for unreasonably long years, that the petitioner has now retired from service, the Court considers it proper to direct that the petitioner is held entitled to his arrears of salary from the date of suspension till revocation less what may have been paid to him as subsistence allowance. Since the entire issue pertains to the period when the petitioner was posted in the unified State of Bihar and the departmental proceedings had also achieved finality much prior to the reorganization of the State of Bihar, the entire liability rests with the State of Bihar to comply the order. Let this order be complied with by the respondent State of Bihar within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)