TAPEN SEN - (1.) IN this writ Application the Petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the Memo dated 24.12.2001 as contained at Annexure -8 to the Writ Application issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.2), whereby and whereunder the authority refused to release subsistence allowance during the period 19.01.1996 to 26.02.2000. The Petitioner has also made a prayer for arrears of salary which, according to him, was also refused in spite of the order passed by this Court on 07.08.2001 in C.W.J.C. No. 3559 of 2001 as contained at Annexure -1 to the Writ Application. However, during the course of argument Mr. P.K. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner confined his prayer only to the payment of subsistence allowance and submitted that so far as the payment of salary is concerned, that would depend on final conclusion of the matter and he would claim salary later on.
(2.) THE Petitioner has stated that he had earlier filed W.P. (8) No. 3559 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed off by an order dated 07.08.2001 by which the Respondent had been directed to decide the question of payment of suosistence allowance as also the arrears of salary within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order. It was also directed that the admitted arrears of subsistence allowance, if found payable, should be paid within a period of 2 1/2 months (two and half months) and admitted arrears of salary, if payable, would also have to be paid within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order and in case they disputed any claim or part thereof, they would communicate the grounds to the Petitioner within the aforesaid period of three months. The Petitioner's case is that on 19.11.1996 he was put under suspension by Annexure -3 and it was ordered that during the period of suspension the Petitioner's Head Quarter would be the Namkom Block and that as per the provisions of Rule 96 of the Bihar Service Code, he would be paid allowance specified in the aforementioned Rule. The Petitioner states that thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Petitioner was asked to submit his cause which he did on 21.12.1998 along with all relevant documents.
(3.) THE Petitioner has further stated that he was not paid salary for the months of August -1995, October to November 1995, January 1996 to 27th April 1996, 19.09.1996 to 18.11.1996 and Earned Leave from 28.04.1996 to 18.09.1996. According to the Petitioner these amounts relate to a period prior to the order of suspension which took effect from 19.11.1996. At paragraph 20, the Petitioner has stated that he was not paid allowances too although he did not have any gainful employment, whatsoever, during the period of suspension, either in any other Government Department or Semi Government Department nor was he carrying on any business. At paragraph -30 also, the Petitioner has stated that during the period of suspension he was not engaged in any other employment, trade, profession or vocation and that in compliance of Rule 96 (2) of the Bihar Service Code he had furnished a certificate to that effect. The Petitioner has also stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report but did not find the Petitioner guilty of any of the charges levelled against him. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and appointed another Enquiry Officer to enquire afresh into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. However, by the same order i.e. the order dated 27.03.2000, while ordering for a fresh Enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner also revoked the order of suspension and posted the Petitioner in the Lapung Block on the vacant post of a Jansewak. While concluding the Deputy Commissioner directed that salary, etc. in relation to the Petitioner, during the period of suspension, would be decided after conclusion of the departmental proceedings. Thereafter, the Petitioner has stated in paragraph -23 that even the Second Enquiry Officer could not find any materials to prove any of the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner again appointed a third Enquiry Officer. The Petitioner has stated that even the third Enquiry Officer could not find any material to substantiate the charges against the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in withholding the salary and allowance of the Petitioner for a period prior to his suspension, the Petitioner filed WP. (S) No. 3559 of 2001 and by order as contained at Annexure -1, directions referred to above were made.;