IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17875 of 2009 RAJENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 09/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.5.2008 and a memo. of two charges issued to him. Charge no.1 alleged that while posted in the Block office, he stayed in a Government accommodation, but by furnishing wrong information obtained house rent allowance. Charge no.2 related to charge no.1, alleging that he did not reply to the show-cause notice dated 17.3.2008 of the Chief Engineer in that context. Departmental proceedings remained inconclusive when he retired on 3.17.2008. It is apparent from his own pleadings in the writ application, he participated in the departmental proceedings and filed his reply also. After the departmental proceedings final orders came to be passed on 20.2.2009 that the charges have been proved and directing recovery from his pension in one lump-sum amount which was subsequently modified on 3.3.2009 only partially that the deduction shall be made from the leave-encashment. A two fold submission has been made. 2 Firstly, that the petitioner had been given a dilapidated Government accommodation and, therefore, utilized the house rent allowance for maintenance of the same. The second submission is that his salary for the period of suspension could not be withheld by the order dated 20.4.2009, except after a show-cause notice in terms of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in 2006 (4) P.L.J.R. 514 (DINESH PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS). Learned counsel for the State rightly points out that it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to sit as an appellate authority over the departmental proceedings and to start sifting facts by reappraisal. He relies upon the cause shown by the petitioner in the departmental proceedings dated 16.9.2008 in which he does not deny the charge that he stayed in Government accommodation and simultaneously availed house rent allowance. The ground presently urged in defence finds no reference therein. Once the charge stands admitted nothing more needs to be proved. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 20.2.2009/ 3.3.2009. 3 Considering the position in law, when the charge has been admitted, the Supreme Court in 2008 (5) SCC 569 (CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.S.P. AND ANOTHERS VERSUS GOPARAJU SRI PRABHAKARA HARI BABU) at pargraph-16 held as follows:- “16. Indisputably, the respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation, in answer to the charge-sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed. Before the enquiry officer, he did not submit the explanation of his mother being ill. He, despite opportunities granted to report to duty, did not do it. He failed to explain even his prior conduct.” Relying upon the case of DINESH PRASAD (supra) this Court holds that the order dated 20.4.2009 in its present form withholding the salary for the period of suspension is not sustainable, but without prejudice to the right to the respondents in accordance with law. The application is allowed only to the extent indicated. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)