IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2519 of 2010 1. SHYAM KISHORE KUMAR S/O LATE RANJAT SINGH R/O VILL JHAMMAN BIGHA,P.S.MAKHDUMPUR,DISTT-JEHANABAD,POSTED AS CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER,AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT,PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH UNIVERSITY 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MAGADH DIVISION,GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION NAWADAH 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION AURANGABAD 7. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER GAYA 8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER JEHANABAD 9. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER AURANGABAD 10. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER AURANGABAD 11. THE DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER GAYA ----------- 2. 19.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended on 7.1.2001 and memo of charges drawn up on 20.9.2002. From the order in LPA No. 1064 of 2002 preferred by the petitioner it appears that the charge against him was that he did not turn up in his office nor did he hand over charge, whereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Gaya, has given the charge of the Almirah containing records and files which were in charge of the petitioner to the Sub Divisional Education Officer when certain records were not found traceable. In CWJC No. 10884 of 2003 this Court on 15.3.2004 directed that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of the order the suspension shall stand revoked but the proceedings shall continue. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension stood revoked in January 2005 but no salary has been paid from the date of suspension till revocation. 2 The writ petition specifically acknowledges that the departmental proceedings have remained inconclusive though the petitioner submits that he has been cooperating and the delay in the disposal of the proceeding is not attributable to him. A decision on the question of salary for the period of suspension arises after the proceedings are concluded. It is the authority of the disciplinary authority to decide in what manner the period of suspension has to be treated and no interim order can be passed for the payment of salary for the period of suspension during pendency of the departmental proceeding. The appropriate remedy of the petitioner therefore lies before the respondent no. 3, as is informed by the Counsel for the State, to represent appropriately for closure of the departmental proceeding and/or payment of his subsistence allowance or enhancement thereof. This Court only observes that given the nature of the charge with no serious allegation of gross indiscipline or financial embezzlement the scepter of the departmental proceeding over his head for nine long years with only subsistence allowance to survive for four years may perhaps be sufficient punishment for the petitioner. But the Court leaves it to the wisdom of the disciplinary authority to take a final decision in respect of the same within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the departmental proceedings were required to be closed without any finding this Court expects that appropriate orders in 3 accordance with law for salary with regard to the period of suspension shall be passed accordingly. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)