PANCHU RAM Vs. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2001 issued under the signature of the learned Registrar, Establishment, Patna by which it has been communicated to the petitioner that his suspension has been revoked with effect from 07.03.2001, however, he shall not be entitled for any further salary during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of certain disputes, the petitioner was sent to custody by a police case bearing Kotwali P.S. Case No. 497 of 1999 dated 11.11999 lodged by his enemies, hence the petitioner was put under suspension with effect from 13.11999 vide order dated 24.05.2000. It is further submitted that the petitioner was released from custody and thereafter the In-Charge Registrar (Establishment), Patna High Court, Patna had passed an order dated 21.12000, whereby and whereunder it was directed that the petitioner shall continue to be under suspension until a verdict of acquittal is recorded by the Court. The petitioner is stated to have been acquitted by a judgment dated 06.01.2001 passed by the learned trial court. It appears that the petitioner had then submitted his joining whereupon by the impugned order dated 08.03.2001, the order of suspension was revoked with effect from 07.03.2001 and the petitioner was reinstated on his post, however, with a condition that he would not be entitled to any further salary for the period of his suspension except the subsistence allowance already received by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has been acquitted, he should be paid the full salary for the period of suspension. It is further submitted that since withholding of salary is a punishment, the same could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner without initiating a departmental proceeding or without issuance of a show-cause notice.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code provides that a Government servant who is arrested on a criminal charge should be considered to be under suspension for the period he is in custody or undergoing imprisonment. Hence, the petitioner was put under suspension under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code by an order dated 24.05.2000 and after the petitioner was granted bail, his suspension was continued under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code by an order dated 21.12.2000. It is submitted that Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code further provides that an employee would be allowed to draw any pay and allowance for such period other than the subsistence allowance in accordance with Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code. Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code provides for the mode and manner of payment of subsistence allowance. Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code reads as follows:-