ANANT KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE AND THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION-CUM-SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER , in this writ application, has prayed for an order quashing the office order bearing Memo No. 345, dated -05.05.2007 (Annexure5), whereby the petitioner's claim for payment of his salary for the period of his suspension from 28.11.2001 to 03.10.2002 has been rejected. The petitioner has made a corresponding prayer for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him the salary for the aforesaid period after adjusting the amount of subsistence allowance paid to him during the aforesaid period.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order, Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the impugned order is totally illegal and in violation of the Service Rules. Learned Counsel would explain that by the first order dated -09.01.2006 (Annexure -4), whereby at the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the punishment of censure, the departmental enquiry was deemed to be closed. Neither in the first order nor in the earlier order whereby the petitioner 'ssuspension was revoked, was any adverse decision taken against the petitioner for forfeiture of his salary for the suspension period. Learned Counsel argues further that after closing the departmental enquiry by imposition of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority did not have authority to retain and treat the proceeding as continuing and to inflict the further punishment of forfeiture as has been done by the impugned order. Referring to the provisions of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, learned Counsel submits that the provisions of Rule 97 of the Code as adopted by the State of Jharkhand, is a mandate making it obligatory on the part of the concerned competent authority to pass necessary orders as to what would be the quantum of allowance payable during the period of suspension. No such order regarding payment of salary for the suspension period or treating the period of the petitioner's suspension, having been passed i.e., it was not within the competence of the Disciplinary Authority to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order of punishment by way of forfeiture of salary for the suspension period. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner would refer to and relies upon the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Chandradip Sharma V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1988 P.L.J.R. 1138 and to another judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Dipali Kundu V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1999 (2) P.L.J.R. 302.