IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11810 of 2004 VIDYANAND VERMA, SON OF LATE DILCHAND VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST KUJAPI, DISTRICT GAYA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, GAYA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS ******** 5 13.12.2010 Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.8.2000, passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Gaya by which the petitioner’s suspension order has been revoked and has he been allowed to continue in service subject to the condition that he would not be paid the entire salary for the period under which he was kept under suspension. Petitioner was absent on 1.2.1991 which resulted in his suspension. The charges were framed on 20.4.1991 against the petitioner and one other person. The only charge against the petitioner is absence from duty for one day. During the enquiry it was found that the petitioner had applied for leave on the ground that he had fallen sick, which has been accepted by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has, therefore, recommended that the petitioner should be transferred from the 2 present post where he is working and his suspension order should be revoked. By the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Education has passed an order which is contrary to the recommendations of the enquiry officer without giving any notice to the petitioner. Apart from which the District Superintendent of Education could not have passed an order withholding the pay of the petitioner on the ground that he was absent during the suspension period. There is no enquiry or report to indicate that he was absent during the period of suspension, in fact it has been submitted that the petitioner was paid his suspension allowance which would indicate that he was present at the place where he was posted. It was required that the District Superintendent of Education should have given notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as per the interpretation and decision of this Court in the case of Shri Mahabir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82. In the result, the order contained in Annexure-6 is quashed. Quashing of the order contained in Annexure-6 would mean that the 3 petitioner would be entitled to get is full pay during the period of suspension. This writ application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)