IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15165 of 2004 1a. Bharti Devi wife of Guneshwar Chaudhary. b. Shailendra Kr. Chaudhary c. Amrendra Kumar Chaudhary d. Pradeep Kr. Chaudhary e. Birendra Kr. Chaudhary All sons of late Guneshwar Chaudhary. f. Rnni Kumari, daughter of late Guneshwar Caudhary. All residents of village + P.O. Beri, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, Distt. Darbhanga. g. Madhvi Kumari daughter of late Guneshwar Chaudhary, wife of Sri Binod Kumar Das, resident of Village + P.O. Haripatti, P.S. Bahadurpur, Distt. Darbhanga. h. Poonam Kumari D/O late Guneshwar Chaudhary, W/O Rabindra Kr. Kanth, R/O Village Rampur, P S.- Sarisabpahi, Distt. Madhubani. i. Sadhna Kumari daughter of late Guneshwar Chaudhary, wife of …………, j. Rina Kumari daughter of late Guneshwar Chaudhary, wife of Anand Kumar Das. Both residnerts of village – Baigani, P S – Bahera, Distt. Darbhanga. ……………………………. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Darbhanga. 3. The Block Development Officer, Biraul Prakhand, Distt. Darbhanga. …………………….Respondents ----------- 05 28.01.2009 Petitioner was a Jan Sewak and was working in Biraul Prakhand when by an order dated 7.6.1990 contained in annexure-1, the District Magistrate, Darbhanga decided to suspend him under Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code. Petitioner remained under suspension till 20th of January, 1997. Vide annexure-2 dated 21.1.1997 his suspension was revoked and allowed to retire on 31.1.1997. The reason why the petitioner had to file the present writ application is because the respondent authorities have fixed his pension treating his service up to 14.6.1990 i.e. the date petitioner was suspended. Not - 2 - only this, since no departmental proceeding or a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner after his suspension till his reinstatement, petitioner prays that he be given entire salary and other benefits. After filing of the writ application petitioner died and therefore his legal heirs have been brought on record. Submission made at the bar on behalf of erstwhile petitioner is that no kind of punishment has been imposed on the deceased employee during the period of suspension and that is the admitted position that no departmental enquiry was held. Merely because the petitioner was kept under suspension then it is well established in law that suspension is no punishment in the eye of law. If the respondents failed in their duty to hold a departmental enquiry or even initiate a criminal proceeding against him then the petitioner would be treated to be in service till his superannuation on 31.1.1997 and he would even be entitled to payment of all his salary for the period of suspension minus subsistence allowance. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent State they have given background under which the petitioner had to be suspended. Allegation is that the original petitioner had swindled some money because he did not account for various advances which he had taken as a Panchayat Sewak for execution of projects and the respondent authorities were left with no option but to take action against him. The reason or the material based on which the decision to suspend the employee in question may not be questioned at this stage. - 3 - But something more was required to be done by the respondents because mere suspension even though of a prolonged kind has served neither the institution or the State in any manner. There is no explanation why the departmental proceeding was not initiated against the employee or even a criminal case was instituted. Be that as it may, the position as it stands today is that after the suspension of the deceased employee vide order dated 7.6.1990 and its revocation on 21.1.1997 nothing substantive was done against the suspended employee who was allowed to retire on 31.1.1997. In view of the above the respondents are precluded from treating the length of service of the deceased employee up to 14.6.1990 only. They will have to calculate the pension of the employee based on the date of his retirement which is 31/1/1997. Further it is also held that the present petitioners who are legal heirs of the deceased employee would also be entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. 14.6.1990 till 21.1.1997 minus the subsistence allowance because there is no other order of punishment which had been passed by the respondents for the period suspension. The writ application is allowed with a direction that the respondents will now take steps to refix the pension and pay the entire dues within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)