IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3838 of 2009 Sheo Lakhan Sinha . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 18.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Revenue Karamchari is aggrieved by his order of suspension dated 17.8.2007 on the ground that he was absent from duty during relief work. Subsequently on 1.3.2008 memo of charge has been served on him for violating orders of superiors and use of improper language in the cause shown. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry but is not aware of what has finally happened. It is next submitted that suspension now for over merely 3 years is too harsh. In the nature of the charges, the Court concurs with the submission that suspension may be too harsh for such a long duration. The Supreme Court in (1999) 3 SCC 679 (Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd) at Paragraph- 29 held as follows:- “29. Exercise of right to suspend an employee may be justified on the facts of a particular 2 case. Instances, however, are not rare where officers have been found to be afflicted by a “suspension syndrome” and the employees have been found to be placed under suspension just for nothing. It is their irritability rather than the employee's trivial lapse which has often resulted in suspension…..” The passage of merely two and half years has not been considered sufficient by the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the simple nature of the case. The Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter for that purpose. If the departmental proceedings have been concluded, the suspension shall stand revoked by the present order, if not already revoked. The issue shall abide by the final order in the departmental proceeding if already passed failing which final orders must be passed within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the proceedings have been concluded and the petitioner has been absolved, the claim of salary for the period of suspension naturally has to be decided under Rule 97 of the Service Code. Conversely, if punishment has been imposed again appropriate orders for the manner in which the period of suspension has to be treated shall be 3 required under the aforesaid Rule. The payment of subsistence allowance is a statutory right subject to fulfillment of the conditions for the same. If the petitioner represents and satisfies the authorities that he fulfills the statutory requirement, let the same be paid to the petitioner also preferably within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if not already paid but subject to the final order at the disposal of the departmental proceedings. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)