IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5125 of 2009 DR.KALPANA KHAN BOSE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 22.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 6.4.2009 on allegations of embezzlement of fund. The submission is that there has been no embezzlement and in fact, the person had made interpolation in the cheque had re- deposited the amount in question. There being no embezzlement the order is passed on non est ground. Reference is further made to Paragraph 32 of the writ application pleading that the cheque in question was signed jointly both by the petitioner as the Additional Chief Medical officer with the other signatory as the District Malaria Officer against whom no action has been taken and the petitioner has been only proceeded against. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegations are of embezzlement. It includes even a temporary embezzlement. Therefore, what he may have subsequently been done after committing embezzlement will be a subject matter of departmental enquiry. The suspension cannot be stated to be on a non est ground. He next submits that it is not known whether the District Malaria Officer has been proceeded against or not, it is only the petitioner’s statement which is available. The writ petition is disposed of with the observation and direction that if there were two signatories to the cheque in question, - 2 - and suspension is passed on any alleged interpolation and wrongful withdrawal of that cheque, both the signatories are required to be treated similarly. If the other signatory to the cheque has not been placed under suspension, the respondents are obliged to reconsider the order dated 6.4.2009 and pass appropriate orders forthwith upon presentation of a copy of this order with regard to the petitioner. This shall be without prejudice to the right of the respondents to deal with the other signatory of the cheque in accordance with law also. The present order of this Court shall not be construed in any other manner permitting the respondents to deviate from their obligation in law on the issue of suspension and framing of charges. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)