RAM CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2002 whereby it has been ordered that during the period of suspension the petitioner would be entitled for subsistence allowance only. The petitioner was put under suspension by an office order dated 01.09.1998. He was served a charge memo dated 22.09.1998 and he submitted his show -cause reply on 14.01.1999. An enquiry report was submitted in which charge Nos. 1 and 3 were found proved. Charge No. 2 related to short supply of materials which was not proved against the petitioner. The order of punishment dated 07.03.2001 was passed withholding one increment with cumulative effect. In view of the proved misconduct of the petitioner by order dated 04.04.2001, it was ordered that during the period of suspension, petitioner would be entitled only for subsistence allowance. The petitioner moved the High Court in W.P. (S) No. 2805 of 2001 challenging the order dated 04.04.2001. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that if any appeal is preferred by the petitioner within three weeks, the Appellate Authority would decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order preferably within a period of four months. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 08.04.2002. The petitioner has challenged order dated 08.04.2002 by filing the present writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed contending that as the petitioner was not fully exonerated from the charges framed against him and he has been awarded punishment, the suspension period from 22.08.1998 to 07.03.2001 was not treated as period on duty and in terms of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, the petitioner has been paid the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before inflicting the order of punishment dated 04.04.2001, petitioner was not issued a second show -cause notice and therefore, the order dated 04.04.2001 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice. He further submitted that before the Appellate Authority this point was specifically argued on behalf of the petitioner however, the Appellate Authority has erroneously dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.