IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11243 of 2006 UMESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE BAL GOVIND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE – KUTAUTH, POLICE STATION – BARBIGHA, DISTRICT – SHEIKHPURA. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OFBIHAR, PATNA. ………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 02.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. The prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 3545 dated 27.4.2005 to the extent it adversely affects the petitioner and for a direction to the respondents for making payment of salary for the period of suspension. The petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Godda and was deputed as Treasury Officer. He was reported to have committed financial irregularities in passing the bills of Animal Husbandry amounting to Rs.28,26,144/-. R.C. Case No. 22A/96 was instituted against the petitioner and he was taken into custody. The petitioner on account 2 of being taken into custody was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him under Rule 49A of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Since the petitioner remained under suspension for more than two years, he challenged the suspension order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1569 of 2004. The writ application was allowed directing the respondents to arrive at appropriate decision within a period of two months. The suspension order has continued beyond the period of two years, it was also observed that in case no decision will be taken by the respondents, the suspension of the petitioner shall automatically stand set aside. Subsequently the suspension was vacated and the period of suspension also regularized. The petitioner was paid his salary for the period of suspension except the period in custody. Considering this fact, I find that the impugned order which is under challenge in the writ application has already been considered and recalled to certain extent by the respondents. Petitioner has been paid his salary for the period of suspension, the 3 suspension period has also been regularized. So far salary for the period during custody is concerned, only that has remained subject to the condition related consequent of the pending case. Considering these facts, this application is disposed of. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)