IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9880 of 2004 BACHHANAND TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, SON OF LATE KESHAV TIWARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST BARISWAN, P.S. SHAHPUR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE (DISTRICT EDUCATION), BHOJPUR, ARA. 4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, BHOJPUR, ARA. 5. THE DEPUTY EDUCATION SUPERINTENDENT, BHOJPUR, ARA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For petitioner :- Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, A.C. to G.A. 1 *********** 3 8.12.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexures 6 and 7. Petitioner was working as a Headmaster in Ratandih Sheshtola Primary School at Jagdishpur Block, Bhojpur. Petitioner was suspended on 4.11.1996 and thereafter charges were framed and served on the petitioner. The enquiry report is contained in Annexure-5, which exonerates the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. The District Superintendent of Education, Bhojpur, Ara vide memo no. 1839, dated 17.10.1997 without issuing show cause or stating the reasons for differing with the enquiry officer has inflicted two punishments. The first is that the petitioner would only be entitled to receive the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and the second is of censure. This order has been confirmed by the Commissioner, Patna vide Annexure-7 dated 10.3.2004. Considering all the facts, once the enquiry officer had 2 exonerated the petitioner from the charges, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to at least state reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry report. It was further necessary in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Mahabir Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 82 that the petitioner ought to have been given a notice before stopping his salary for the period of suspension. Since the stoppage of salary for the aforesaid period would be to the detriment of the petitioner, it would require that a fresh show cause be issued before passing any such order. In the result, the order contained in Annexure-6 dated 17.10.1997 and the order dated 10.3.2004 are quashed. This application is allowed. The petitioner would be entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension and all benefits that would accrue as a result of such payment. This writ application is, thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)