KAMTA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BOTH these writ applications have been filed for common cause, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have assailed the order impugned on the ground that they are under prolonged suspension without initiation of a departmental proceeding and even subsistence allowances are not being paid to them. It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were put under suspension vide order, as contained in Annexure 1, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna and thereafter they have been repatriated to their parent Department, namely, Home (Police) but for no fault of the petitioners, the departmental proceeding has not yet been initiated nor they are getting their subsistence allowances, and, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the parent Department of the petitioners is not initiating the departmental proceeding, as the petitioners were put under suspension by the order of the Transport Commissioner, Government of Bihar, and a request has been made to the Transport Department to initiate the departmental proceeding at their own level. It is further submitted that some of the similarly situated Enforcement Officers, who were also put under suspension, are being proceeded against departmentally by the Transport Department itself, and, therefore, the petitioners cases should also be dealt with in the like manner, but, somehow or the other, they are being discriminated and they are hanging in between the Home (Police) Department and the Transport Department, and they are continuing under prolonged suspension without initiation of a departmental proceeding.