IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8195 of 2010 1. SRI BIKAS CHANDRA KUMAR @ BIKAS CHANDRA, S/O LATE SADHU SARAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE LAKHAWAR, P.S.- GHOSI, DISTRICT JAHANABAD THE THEN DEPUTY DIRECTOR (COMPUTER) CUM PROJECT DIRECTOR B.C.S.T. PATNA, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVT. OF BIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, DISTRICT- PATNA. 2. JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, DISTRICT-PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, TECHNOLOGY BHAWAN,DISTRICT-PATNA. ----------- 3/ 20/06/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.8.2008 on two charges, one related to a demand for illegal gratification and the second to unauthorized absence. The defence of the petitioner that he had proceeded on sanctioned leave is a matter to be more appropriately considered in the departmental enquiry where the petitioner shall have full opportunity to present his defence including any orders sanctioning the leave. Till such issue is not decided in the departmental proceeding, the Court is unable to consider and give any directions for payment of wages for the disputed period. Insofar as the issue of supply of any documents in the departmental proceedings are concerned, needless to state that every material on 2 which the Department proposes to rely for indicting the petitioner on the two charges has to be furnished to him. No material can be relied upon behind his back to indict. Conversely, the petitioner may not demand by all and sundry records from the Department. He is only entitled to be given relevant documents. The petitioner has already filed his detailed reply to the charges. If he files any application before the Enquiry Officer seeking any further documents, the Enquiry Officer is naturally required to dispose off the same in accordance with law either allowing it or rejecting it for specified reasons as to why they were not relevant. The representation of the petitioner dated 25.8.2010 in this regard appears vague as it does not specifically disclose what are the itemwise documents in respect of the two charges which he requires. It cannot be lost sight of that he has already filed his defence. The departmental proceedings appear to have commenced. Let the same be concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates. If the departmental proceedings are not concluded within the time specified for reasons not attributable to the petitioner and in that event the 3 petitioner so represents for revocation of suspension, the Court directs the respondents to re-consider the issue of suspension in accordance with law and pass fresh orders within a maximum period of one month from the date of submission of such representation. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)