IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1671 of 2010 1. MOSAMAT SUDIKA DEVI W/O LATE SHUKHCHANDRA MISHRA RETIRED EXCISE CONSTABLE, SAHARSA, R/O VILL SINGHBARA,LALPUR, P.S.SINGHBARA,DISTT-DARBHANGA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT OF SAHARSA, BIHAR 4. THE COLLECTOR OF SAHARSA, BIHAR ----------- 3/ 06/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The claim in this application is for arrears of 34 days’ salary from 7.4.1978 to 9.5.1978 and full salary for the period of suspension from 10.5.1978 to 17.9.1990. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased employee. The deceased was an accused under Section- 409 of Indian Penal Code with regard to Government money. He was placed under suspension. In the trial no prosecution evidence was led except for one formal witness. The defence led no evidence. The judgment dated 14.9.1990 giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner was of acquittal. Nonetheless, for the occurrence, he was compulsorily retired on 21.08.2005. He never questioned the same in his lifetime. The widow now seeks salary for the period of suspension on account of the acquittal and consequent revocation of the suspension. - 2 - Insofar as the claim for salary from 7.4.1978 to 9.5.1978 is concerned, this Court finds the same to be highly belated to merit consideration. Insofar as the claim for full salary for the period of suspension is concerned, if the deceased in fact remained under suspension during that period and has been paid his subsistence allowance, he is not entitled to full salary as admittedly he did not discharge duties. There is no occasion for this Court to consider in what manner the period of suspension might have been treated if it was a case of clean acquittal. Presently the employee was not given a clean acquittal, but he was given the benefit of doubt when for reasons better known to the State Government authorities no evidence was led to prove the charges. If the acquittal was based on benefit of doubt, it cannot be said that he stood exonerated so as to claim full salary, if it was permissible. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)