IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7339 of 2010 1. Pawan Kumar Pandey S/O Late Shesh Nath Pandey Upper Division Clerk(Now Retired), Distt-Registration Office, Jehanabad And At Present Residing Of Abhaypur (Masudan), P.S. Pili Bazar, Distt-Lakhisarai Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Inspector General (Registration) Bihar , New Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Sub-Registrar Jehanabad 3. The District Sub-Registrar Jamui 4. The Sub-Registrar Chakai, Jamui 5. The Block Development Officer Chakai, Jamui 6. The Inspector(Registration) Munger Division, Munger 7. Md. Jahid Hussain S/O Not Known Head Clerk, Sub-Registar Office, Chakai, Jamui ----------- 3. 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner had originally sought a restraint order against the respondents from continuing with the departmental proceedings after his superannuation. The issue with regard to charges having been framed on 23.12.2009 and despatched before his superannuation on 31.12.2009 and its legal implications has now become an academic issue in view of Annexure-E to the counter affidavit dated 5.8.2010 by which converting the proceedings to one under Section 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, it has been concluded and final orders have been passed that nothing was payable for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance and that 2 the period was otherwise to count for the service. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Rule 11 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 submits that the counter affidavit or the impugned order does not disclose what the enquiry report was. If the petitioner has been exonerated, he is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension as in that event the suspension turns out to be wholly unjustified. If no counter affidavit had been filed by the respondents the matter may have been different. A counter affidavit with annexures has been filed. The Court has to keep in mind that the petitioner has superannuated on 31.12.2009. He now has no other source of income except his pension. The Court is therefore not persuaded to accept the submission of the respondents that the matter may be remanded to the authorities for an appropriate decision in accordance with Rule 11(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. It was the duty of the respondents to file a proper and detailed counter affidavit to assist the Court in passing final conclusive orders and not generate further litigation by their orders inconclusive in nature. Paragraph-12 of the counter 3 affidavit affirmed by the District-sub-Registrar, Jehanabad Shree Awadhesh Kumar Jha, simply states that the proceeding against the petitioner had been concluded and final orders passed. It is unfortunate and he did not consider it necessary to assist the Court by bringing on record the nature of the final orders passed in the enquiry. The order dated 5.8.2010 is of no help. The manner in which the respondents have proceeded to confront this Court with their own conclusions rather than assisting the Court, in order to bring the litigation to an end, the Court accepts the submission on behalf of the petitioner, applying the principles of non- traverse. If it was a report of exoneration, the suspension becomes unjustified entitling him to full salary for that period under Rule 11(3) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Had the respondents found an Iota of guilt in the proceeding undoubtedly the counter affidavit or the final order would have made some reference to it directly or indirectly. The order dated 5.10.2010 is set aside to the extent that it denies him for salary for the period of suspension. The respondents are directed to pay the balance entitlement of the petitioner after 4 deducting the subsistence allowance paid within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)