IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11883 of 2010 Ajay Kumar Singh son of Sri Sharda Prasad Singh, resident of village Samod Bigha, P.S. and P.O.-Sherghati in the district of Gaya. At present Barachatti (Block) in the district of Gaya. …Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya, District-Gaya. 3. Sri Sanjay Singh son of (not known to the petitioner). District Magistrate, Gaya, District-Gaya. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Enquiry Officer Sherghati, Gaya, District-Gaya. 5. The Block Development Officer, Barachatti, District-Gaya. ….Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner:- 1. Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. 2. Mr. Shiv Kr. Prabhakar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents:- Shri V.M.K Sinha, A.C. to AAG-13. ----------- 2. 22.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ application was filed on 12.01.2010 after serving two copies in the office of the Advocate General, Bihar. The second copy was meant to facilitate expeditious filing of Counter affidavit. The passage of considerable time since then has not been considered sufficient by the respondents to file counter affidavit and assist the Court in dispensation of justice, a constitutional obligation under Chapter IV of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the State prays for adjournment to file counter affidavit. The Court is not persuaded to adjourn the matter. The Court has observed in more one order that the respondents appear to be suffering from a mis-conception that the grant of adjournment on the first date of listing is a matter of 2 right notwithstanding the long passage of time that may have gone by since the date of filing furnishing more than reasonable time for a counter affidavit. The case has been running on the cause list for sufficiently long. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension and subjected to a departmental proceeding. He was exonerated and is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension as the suspension was wholly unjustified. Learned counsel for the State submits that the criminal trial is still pending. The Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 came into force on 12.07.2005. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.08.2005 and charges framed on 22.02.2006. Rule 11(3) provides that where the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. If a report of exoneration has been submitted in the departmental proceedings, the respondents had the authority to differ with the same if they so desired. Once they accepted the report of exoneration, the suspension turns out wholly unjustified. The fact that the criminal case may be pending against the petitioner is not relevant for the purpose as he was suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. In any event, the standards for proof, the purpose of a departmental proceeding 3 and a criminal trial are wholly different. The impugned order dated 10.08.2009 is set aside to the extent that it denies him full emolument for the period of suspension. Let the arrears of salary less what has been paid as subsistence allowance be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of the receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. Kamlesh (Navin Sinha, J.)