IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14194 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE RAJA MUNI SHARMA R/O VILL.- HEMAT PUR, P.O.- MANIPUR, P.S.- ARA MUFFASIL, DISTT.- BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR (PRIMARY EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR AT ARA 5. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, BHOJPUR AT ARA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, UDWANT NAGAR, BHOJPUR ----------- 2 10.11.2010 The petitioner has challenged his suspension and continuance thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to communication of the Block Education Extension Officer, Udwant Nagar, District – Bhojpur under Memo No 500 dated 26.12.2009 (Annexure-9). He submits that this order clearly shows that the order of suspension was issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur on 21.02.2009 and chargesheet was issued on 26.05.2009 but apparently the office came to now of it only on 18.12.2009 and, accordingly, petitioner was immediately suspended. Thus, he submits that the suspension having been made with effect from 21.02.2009 and chargesheet having now been served alongwith the said Memo, it was much beyond three months period as specified under Rule 9 (7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, the submission is misconceived. It is apparent that though the suspension order was issued on 21.02.2009 and the chargesheet was issued on 26.05.2009, for some curious reason, the same could not be served upon the petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher. It could only be served on the petitioner by the Memo under consideration on or about 31.12.2009. Thus, petitioner was gone under suspension on 31.12.2009 by when he had simultaneously received the chargesheet. The bar of continuance of his suspension, as contemplated under Rule 9 (7), would, thus, not come into play. On behalf of petitioner, it is then submitted that though he was effectively put under suspension with effect from 01.01.2010 and chargesheet served, he has filed his show cause, suspension continues but not a single farthing has been paid as subsistence allowance from January, 2010 onwards. Here, I may point out that even though the authorities have the discretion to suspend an employee pending departmental proceedings, the law simultaneously enjoins upon the employer to regularly and timely make payment of subsistence allowance. That being so, I direct the Block Education Extension Officer, Udwant Nagar, District – Bhojpur to ensure that the overdue subsistence allowance be paid to the petitioner within one month from production of a copy of this order before him and would also ensure that the departmental proceedings are concluded at an early date preferably within three months subject to petitioner’s cooperating, the responsibility whereof shall lie upon the said Block Education Extension Officer, 3 Udwant Nagar. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)