Rakesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC -15.
(2.) The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article -226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing of an order contained in Memo No. 397 dated 31.01.2011 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Siwan, whereby an order was passed that during the suspension period, save and except subsistence allowance, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any pay or allowances. This order is purported to have been passed while exercising power under Rule 97(5) of Bihar Service Code. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the Respondents to make payment of full salary during his suspension period.
(3.) Short fact of the case is that the petitioner, while functioning as Assistant Teacher, was made accused in Andar P.S. Case No. 45/1986 registered for the offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is case of the petitioner that he was taken in custody on 04.09.1986 and finally he was released on bail. The petitioner was chargesheeted and prosecuted in the said case corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 344/1989 and finally the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges vide Judgment of acquittal dated 15.07.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Siwan vide Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The petitioner after being acquitted was released from his suspension vide order contained in Memo No. 2062 dated 21.07.2010. In view of the fact that the petitioner was detained in a criminal case and it was alleged by the Department that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact regarding his detention, the petitioner was also departmentally proceeded and Memo of Charge was served vide Annexure -5 to the writ petition. The petitioner was charged on three allegations, namely, (i) he was detained in a criminal case for the offence under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (ii) Despite the fact that the petitioner was a government servant, he was involved in a case of murder and (iii) even though the petitioner was in custody, he had not given such information and, as such, it was a case of misconduct on the part of a government servant.;