IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1275 of 2009 Chandra Kishore Mani Tiwari . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 04.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended and proceeded with departmentally. A minor punishment of censure was imposed. Salary for the period of suspension was with held and only subsistence allowance was held to be payable. The petitioner questioned the same in CWJC No. 5434 of 1998. This Court upheld the order of punishment. Adverting to Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code the Court held the second punishment withholding the entire salary for the period of suspension was bad in absence of compliance with principles natural justice. The Court set aside the second punishment and granted liberty to the petitioner to represent. The reliance by the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in 2006 (4) PLJR 514 (Dinesh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar & ors.) has no application as the aforesaid judgment is based on the complete absence of a show cause notice under Rule 97 (3) of the Code. Once the petitioner filed his representation under a judgment of this Court which he accepted, the lacunae, if any, in compliance with Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code, stood complied. The respondents then passed an order on 5.2.2000 after considering his representation holding that for the period of suspension he was entitled to two increments and simultaneously not entitled to two other increments but the period of suspension shall be counted for the purpose of pension etc. The Court has gone through the representation of the petitioner. It is based on merits of his claim that the punishment was unjustified. 2 There is no reason mentioned in his representation why on his release from suspension, when punishment had been imposed, he was nonetheless entitled to full salary for the period of suspension. It appears an anachronism that an employee is suspended, a departmental proceeding follows, he is punished, meaning thereby that the suspension is found to be justified and yet he can make out a claim for full salary for the period of a justified suspension. The petitioner appears to have approached this Court again in CWJC No. 7713 of 2000 against the order dated 5.2.2000. A Bench of this Court set aside the fresh order dated 5.2.2000 on the ground that the order did not spell out whether the suspension was wholly justified or not. The respondents have then passed a fresh order on 16.5.2008 duly reviewed on the request of the petitioner and upheld on 1.10.2008. The impugned order states that Rule 97 provides for full payment during period of suspension in a case of exoneration. If he had not been exonerated, affirmed by an order of the Court also, he cannot be held entitled to full salary for the period of suspension which otherwise shall be counted for the purpose of pension. Upon consideration, this Court holds that the impugned order reflects a correct interpretation of Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code. In CWJC No. 5434 of 1998 this Court had only found a procedural flaw in the decision of the respondents. The impugned order adequately reflects the mind of the respondents why it was wholly justified. The order is within jurisdiction and does not suffer from any arbitrariness warranting interference. The writ application stands dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3