PAWAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar.

(2.) THE husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension and proceeded against departmentally. The order of punishment followed on an enquiry report of exoneration without proceeding in the manner required by law for a difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority. The husband of the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4355/91. The order of punishment and the appellate order were both set aside. The employee remained under suspension when final orders were again passed on 7.6.1995 imposing punishment inter alia that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. The husband of the petitioner went up in appeal and has been deceased during the pendency of the same. The final order of punishment has been passed on 12.12.2005 reiterating that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension and which is the only part of the punishment which is contested in the present writ application. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench order of this Court reported in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 515 (Dinesh Prasad V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.) holding as follows at pargaraph -9 of the same: - "9. Apart from these questions, so far the main question for which this matter has been referred, is concerned, it appears that for imposing the punishment no, (iii) that the petitioner shall not get anything for the period of suspension save and except the subsistence allowance, the disciplinary authority was required to give separate show cause notice to the delinquent in terms of Rule 97(3) of the Code. This part of the order, therefore, is not permissible in absence of any such notice to the delinquent employee." On basis of the aforesaid it is submitted that in absence of a proper show cause notice before imposition of the aforesaid punishment the same is not sustainable in law. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The position in law as urged on behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench finds no consideration in the counter affidavit.

(3.) THE writ application has, therefore, to be allowed in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench. The order of punishment dated 7.6.1995, as affirmed in the appellate order dated 12.12.2005 is held to be not sustainable, but only in so far as the claim for salary for the period of suspension is concerned. The other punishment withholding three increments has not been the subject matter of challenge and does not form part of consideration in this judgment. It remains unchallenged and operative.