IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4612 of 2006 SRI NAND KISHORE PANDEY, son of Late Sri Janardan Pandey, resident of Mohalla- Pandey Tola, P. O. + P.S. Sagauli, District- East Champaran (Motihari) ……..Petitioner. Versus 1. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SEC.,DEPartment of Health, Government of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The State Leprosy Alleviation Officer, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon, Bettiah. 6. The District Leprosy Alleviation Officer, Bettiah. 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Heath Centre, Bettiah… Respondent. ----------- 4. 13.08.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- (i) For the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the charge memo contained in Memo No. 758 dated 14.8.1999 issued under the signature of the State Leprosy Alleviation Officer. (ii) For issuance of the writ of mandamus directing the concerned respondent for making payment of the full salary due to the petitioner for the period 1.10.1999 to 8.11.2001 during which the petitioner was under suspension in view of the fact that he was reinstated in his service after revocation of the suspension vide order dated 30.9.1999 contained in Memo No. 2141 by the District Magistrate, Bettiah and there is no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner. (iii) For holding that the suspension having been revoked and the petitioner having already filed his show cause during 2 the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding without any inquiry for nearly seven years only goes to prove that the disciplinary authority being satisfied by the show-cause of the petitioner and consequence there of the charge memo have lost its application and therefore by issuance of writ of certiorari is fit to be quashed. (iv) For a direction to the respondent to make full payment of salary and other allowances along with its interest till the date of payment in view of the fact that the same will prejudice the career as there being no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner and/or pass such other writ or writs, as your lordships may deem fit and proper.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was only subjected to explanation as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be drawn against him by an order dated 14.8.1999 and he had already submitted his explanation on 30.8.1999 but instead of taking any decision on such explanation the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 30.9.1999 and the said suspension order was continued till 3.11.2001 when the same was revoked of course from prospective effect i.e. the date of order being 3.11.2001. Counsel for the petitioner accordingly would submit that when no departmental proceeding as such has been drawn against the petitioner and the order of suspension has also been 3 revoked on 3.11.2001, the petitioner would become entitled for payment of salary for the intervening period of suspension i.e. 1.10.1999 to 3.11.2001. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have taken a plea that the payment of salary for the period of suspension has not been made because there was no order to pay rest of the amount in the order revoking suspension. Let it be noted that the respondents have not taken a plea that pursuant to the order seeking explanation from the petitioner dated 14.8.1999 any departmental proceeding was ever drawn against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that if no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner in last 11 years from the date of issuance of the order dated 14.8.1999, the respondents must take a decision for payment of salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the respondents would find that the petitioner was not subjected to any 4 punishment on account of aforementioned suspension the petitioner would be automatically entitled for payment of full salary for the period suspension under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code. They would accordingly also take such action to ensure that the payment of salary for the period of suspension is also made to the petitioner in the next one month of such decision taken by the State Leprosy Alleviation Officer, Bihar Patna, respondent no. 4 who had either sought explanation form the petitioner on 14.8.1999 or had placed the petitioner under suspension or had directed for revocation of suspension of the petitioner. Let it be however made clear that this Court has not finally adjudicated such claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period of suspension nor has held the Annexure-1 to be bad and therefore a decision in this regard must be taken by the respondents strictly in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. kanchan/ ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)