IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3982 of 2007 Bishram Sharma @ Bishram Singh, S/O- LATE TREVENI SINGH, RETIRED KARAMCHARI OF MAKHDUMPUR BLOCK, DIST.- JEHANABAD & RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KONCHI, P.S.- GURARU, DIST.- GAYA :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ESTABLISHMENT, JEHANABAD. 5. THE PRAKHAND VIKAS PADADHIKARI, GOSHI, DIST.- JEHANABAD. 6. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, MAKHDUMPUR BLOCK, DIST. JEHANABAD. 7. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, JEHANABAD :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Harishankar Roy, A.C. to A.A.G.-IX. ====== 2. 28.09.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time petitioner served as Revenue Karmchari. He has filed this writ petition questioning the validity of the order bearing Memo No. 285A dated 2nd June, 2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad, Annexure-4, whereunder the punishment order communicated to the petitioner by the Establishment Deputy Collector, Jehanabad under Memo No. 95 dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-1 has been modified observing that petitioner shall not be paid salary for the suspension period beyond the Subsistence Allowance on the ground that during the period of suspension he did not 2 discharge work. He has further challenged the order bearing Memo No. 50 dated 19th January, 2004, Annexure-5, whereunder the earlier order dated 2nd June, 2003 has been maintained holding that petitioner shall not be entitled for salary beyond the Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid order dated 2nd June, 2003, 19th January, 2004, Annexures- 4,5 have been passed withholding the full salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension without serving on him notice under sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, which, inter alia, requires granting opportunity of being heard to the delinquent before withholding his salary beyond Subsistence Allowance for the period of suspension. 4. Petitioner having been held guilty after conduction of the departmental proceeding and his two increments were withheld with cumulative effect as also the amount of Rs. 35,870/- which he misappropriated was directed to be recovered in 45 instalments, there is no justification for payment of full salary to the petitioner for the period of suspension but before withholding 3 his full salary for the period of suspension, he is required to be given notice under sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code and as the said notice has not yet been given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 2nd June, 2003, 19th January, 2004 Annexures- 4,5, I remit back the matter to the Collector, Jehanabad to serve on the petitioner such notice and thereafter to pass appropriate order in the light of the punishment order dated 12.3.1993, Annexure-1. Necessary compliance of this order be made by the Collector within reasonable time, not exceeding three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)