IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 8722 of 2009 Nirbhaya Kumar Pandey, son of late Janardan Pandey, resident of Mohalla – Dakhen Tola, Siwan Town, P O – Siwan, Dist – Siwan - Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Collector, Siwan 3. Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Siwan - Respondents ----------- 2 27.07.2009 The petitioner is a Clerk in the Siwan Nagar Parishad. It appears there were certain charges levelled against him. The Nagar Parishad set up an Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report to the Nagar Parishad after considering the show cause filed by the petitioner. The Nagar Parishad considered the matter on 24.01.2009 and decided to charge the petitioner on basis of the said enquiry report. While doing so, they have put petitioner under suspension and ordered for framing of charge in the matter against the petitioner that is they have decided to take punitive action against the petitioner. While doing so, they, as noted above, has suspended the petitioner but the matter did not end there. During pendency of the proceedings, they have directed recovery of various amounts from petitioner based on the enquiry report. Petitioner’s grievances are two folds. Firstly, the order does not show that during period of suspension, he has been directed to be paid subsistence allowance. It is stated that, since the order of suspension, he has not been paid even his subsistence allowance which, in law, he is entitled to. The second grievance is without concluding the proceedings which, admittedly, are still pending, the orders for recovery 2 of any amount could not be passed. This is yet to be ascertained. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, in my view, there is no point keeping the writ petition pending. So far as subsistence allowance is concerned, no separate order has to be passed. No sooner a person is put under suspension, the authority is under obligation to pay him at least the subsistence allowance. Subsistence allowance is not wages. They are allowance to permit a person to survive. In case petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance, he shall be paid his full subsistence allowance immediately and departmental proceedings cannot proceed any further without payment of the said subsistence allowance in full. I direct accordingly. Secondly with regard to recovery, from the order as contained in Annexure-1 itself, it is clear that charges are yet to be proved against the petitioner. Proceedings in this regard has just started. Even before concluding the proceedings, order of recovery has been made. That cannot be done. The recovery is dependent on the charges being proved. Merely on basis of an enquiry report, recovery order cannot be passed if there is a departmental proceeding contemplated as in the present case. Thus, to the extent that the impugned order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Executive Officer, Siwan Nagar Parishad, in so far as it orders recovery of amounts is concerned, that is kept in abeyance till conclusion of departmental proceedings. With the said directions and observations, the writ 3 petition stands disposed of. It is made clear that departmental proceedings have not been stayed nor this Court has applied its mind to the merits of the contentions. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)