IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11053 of 2000 Jai Kishore Pd. Sinha, son of Shri Vishwanath Pd. Sinha, resident of village Mirzapur, P.O. Shrisiyan, P.S. Kanti, District Muzaffarpur, at present posted as Assistant Teacher Primary School, Jataulia, Block Motipur, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur 5. Area Education Officer, Kanti, Muzaffarpur … Respondents ---------------------------------- 3. 9.8.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed the order dated 19.5.1998, as contained in Annexure 4, whereby and whereunder the District Superintendent of Education, Muzaffarpur while revoking the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 28.11.1995 has held that the petitioner will not be entitled for payment of any salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the order of suspension dated 28.11.1995 was passed in contemplation of a departmental proceeding but then no departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner and in fact the order of suspension also came to be revoked by an order dated 19.5.1998 only on the basis of judgment of acquittal in the criminal case. She has in this context relied on the provision of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code wherein in case of exoneration in the departmental proceeding the employee is entitled to full payment of salary for the period of suspension. 2 Admittedly the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding but such departmental proceeding has not been initiated much less concluded. Counsel for the State has fairly conceded that no charge was framed against the petitioner nor any departmental proceeding was held. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to sustain that part of the order whereby and whereunder the payment of salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension had been withheld. Payment of salary of the period of suspension can only be withheld if the delinquent (the Government servant) is held to be guilty of the charge framed against him. It is true that the order of suspension of the petitioner was not based on account of pendency of the criminal trial but then even if it be held that pending criminal trial was the reason for suspension, that also has ended in clean acquittal of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the last sentence in the impugned order dated 19.5.1998 as with regard to non-payment of salary for the period of suspension of the petitioner is held to be bad and is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner would be accordingly also entitled for payment of balance salary after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension which must be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 3 With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/