IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3260 of 2010 1. JAI PRAKASH RAI S/O LATE RAHDHE RAI R/O VILL.- SIKARI TOLA, P.S.- SHAHAKUND, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER BHAGALPUR, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KHARALPHA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ----------- 2/ 07/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Despite two copies of the writ application served in the office of the learned Advocate General on 6.2.2010, the respondents have still not filed a counter affidavit. Prayer is made for further adjournment. This Court declines the same. It was for the respondents to realize their duties to assist the Court in quick dispensation of justice. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 28.6.2004 on grounds of not having handed over charge to the new incumbent violating administrative discipline. Nothing transpired thereafter. He approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.8892/09, disposed on 30.7.2009, complaining that he has remained under suspension for five long years without any charge-sheet. This Court directed the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings within three months with liberty to proceed ex parte also, if so satisfied. A charge- - 2 - sheet was served thereafter only on 15.11.2009. According to the petitioner the proceedings still remain inconclusive. Learned counsel for the State points out that the Memo. of Charge states that due to his not handing over the charge development works were impeded. In the nature of the charge involving no allegations of financial misappropriation or embezzlement, that the petitioner has suffered a suspension now for over six long years. The proceedings are alleged to have remained inconclusive notwithstanding the liberty granted by the court to proceed ex parte. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner has suffered enough. The loss of full salary and the trauma of a suspension from service for such a long period of time is considered sufficient punishment. The order of suspension dated 28.6.2004 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to his entire subsistence allowance including any enhancement thereof in accordance with the service rules to be paid to him within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. If the departmental proceedings have been disposed before the present order has been passed, this order shall not be any impediment, and the departmental - 3 - proceedings shall then abide by the final orders that may have been passed therein in accordance with law. This Court considers it necessary to incorporate the latter part of this order in view of the fact that the writ petition has been disposed without a counter affidavit. If the departmental proceedings have not been concluded till date, the respondents are prohibited from proceeding any further with the same. Leave is granted in that event to represent for the entire salary for the period of suspension. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)