RAM SAGAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the Petitioner of CWJC No. 3026 of 2005, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 23.2.2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby he has upheld the order dated 3.1.2006, passed by the Director, Primary Education, in purported exercise of powers Under Rules 99 and 100 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), whereby the period 17.11.70 to 20.6.75, the period during which the Appellant was unauthorizedly absent, as period of deemed suspension, but has refused to grant full salary for the period. This appeal is further directed against the order dated 25.1.2010, passed by the Director, Primary Education, being consequential in nature, whereby it has been directed that the Appellant shall be entitled to subsistence allowance for the period in question because the Appellant did not discharge any official duties during that period.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The Appellant was althrough employee of the Bihar Government, in the Department of Education. A first information report was lodged against him and others on 15.11.70, inter alia, making allegations under Section 302, IPC. He absented himself continuously from 17.11.70. He was arrested on 13.4.74, and was released on bail on 13.9.74. He reported for duties on 14.9.74, but was perhaps not allowed to join. He was placed under spension with effect from 21.6.75. The prosecution filed an suspension with effect from 21.6.75. The prosecution filed an application under Section 321, Code of Criminal Procedure in Sessions Trial No. 198/1977, seeking permission to withdraw the sessions trial. By his order dated 16.2.79, the learned Additional Sessions Judge II, Muzaffarpur, allowed the application and permitted withdrawal of the criminal case. By order dated 31.8.79, of the State Government, the order of suspension was revoked. The Petitioner superannuated from the services of the Bihar Government with effect from 31.8.1983.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that, in view of the provisions of rules 99 and 100 of the Code, the Respondent authorities were obliged in law to place him under suspension forthwith after 15.11.70, in which case the Appellant would have been entitled to the benefit of payment of full salary because of the subsequent withdrawal of the criminal case. He also raises a grievance that, in view of the lapses on the part of the Respondent authorities, payment of salary and post-retirement benefits got unduly delayed. He should, therefore, be compensated with adequate interest.