IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12731 of 2009 UDAI SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State of Bihar, for the State of Jharkhand as also the Accountant General. The impugned order dated 31.7.2008 is self- contradictory in a departmental proceeding. It is for the prosecution to prove the charge on its own steam based on oral and documentary evidence. Once the charges are proved, the question of a delinquent making his defence for consideration by the enquiry officer arises. If the department itself is unable to prove the charge, there is nothing for the delinquent to defend. The impugned order states that the charges could not be proved in absence of evidence. Yet it denies full salary for the period of suspension. If the department was unable to prove the charges, the suspension obviously becomes unjustified. The impugned order dated 31.7.2008 is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to full salary and other consequential benefits for the period of suspension. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)