IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.378 of 2009 MAHARSHI RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 19.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instructions and seeks leave of the Court to make submissions from the same. This Court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for purpose of the counter affidavit in view of the nature of the order to be passed and permits counsel for the petitioner to make submissions from the instructions received by him. In pursuance of a vigilance case with regard to certain mutation entries, the petitioner was taken into custody on 25.9.2007. On his release, he gave his joining on 3.3.2008. Fresh orders of suspension were then passed on 2.5.2008 giving its retrospective effect from 25.9.2007. Rule 9(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule’) contemplates deemed suspension of a Government servant being taken into custody and remaining so for a period beyond 48 hours. To that extent, this Court finds no infirmity suspending the petitioner from 25.9.2007 which shall remain effective till his release and submission of his joining. The suspension is not a punishment. The law does 2 not contemplate retrospective order of suspension. Therefore, when the petitioner joined duties on 3.3.2008, the authorities rightly passed a fresh order of suspension on 2.5.2008. After subtracting the period deemed suspension pursuant to custody, retrospective suspension, not being permissible in law, the petitioner stands suspended from 2.5.2008. This Court holds that in the interregnum from 3.3.2008 to 1.5.2008 the petitioner was not under suspension and the order dated 2.5.2008 to that extent is bad. He is held entitled to his full salary for the aforesaid period. Charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 10.9.2007 itself and the petitioner has filed his show cause to the same. Departmental proceeding is stated to be in progress. There is no occasion for this Court at this stage to interfere with the order of suspension effective from 2.5.2008. Let the departmental proceeding be concluded expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. The time period shall apply, provided the petitioner himself cooperates. In the event of his non-cooperation, the Inquiry Officer shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte also but after recording his satisfaction with reasons for the same in the order sheet of the proceedings. If the departmental proceedings are not concluded 3 within the time fixed, in either event, as the case may be, the order of suspension shall stand revoked on expiry of the period when the departmental proceeding shall continue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid his subsistence allowance for the period of custody and also after fresh suspension. Payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended Government servant is a statutory obligation of the Respondents. Order of the Court is not required for the same. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)