IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13942 of 2005 DINESH NANDAN SAHAY S/O Late Ramadhar Lal, Resident of Village Jamsona, P.O. Awadhi, P.S. Dawath, District- Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 4. Additional Secretary, Incharge Joint Cadre, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 5. Cane Commissioner Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------- 3. 13.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The fact as it stands is that the appellate authority has finally decided to impose two kinds of punishment upon the petitioner, one is of censor for the year 1996-1997 and the other was that the petitioner will not be entitled to payment of any kind except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The Court is not convinced that it is a case where there is no finding against the petitioner with regard to the charges levelled against him but it is also a fact that there are certain mitigating circumstances, which compelled the respondents to take a lenient view in the matter and imposed the two punishments against the petitioner which is Annexure-8 to the writ application. 2 The Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter on this score. However, one legal infirmity contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the procedure laid down under Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code was not followed in awarding the second punishment which is non payment of salary and other allowances to the petitioner except subsistence allowance seems to be correct. The law is well settled that on this issue that the respondents must take recourse to the procedure laid down under Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code before imposing such punishment. In absence of any such procedure having been followed, the respondents cannot take recourse to the punishment of non payment of salary and other allowances to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid fact, that part of the impugned order imposing the second punishment is set aside. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)