Vikramaditya Prasad, J. - (1.) The main question to be decided in this writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the petitioner, who was a Government employee and was governed by the Bihar Service Code, 1952 (in short 'Code') put under suspension for 17 years on certain charges of misappropriation, should have been paid the full salary for that period after his being reinstated to that post.
(2.) This question arises out of the simple facts that the petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the year 1961 in the department by the deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and he was also posted after being confirmed on that post as cashier -cum -store -keeper, in Senha block in the District of Ranchi, in the year 1969. Then it transpires that by Memo No. 2219/11 dated 18.8.1969, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi suspended the petitioner with effect from 19.5.1969. Besides that two police cases being GR Case No. 1921/1969 and GR Case No. 1922/1969 were also filed against him and he was released on bail some time in April, 1970. Then it transpires that a departmental proceeding (vide Annexure 1) was initiated against him. In that departmental proceeding, the petitioner has waited for revoking of the suspension order. Subsequent thereto he filed a writ application, being CWJC No. 1298 of 1995(R) in which the respondents appeared, filed counter affidavit and also averred that the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 10.1.1986 (vide Annexure 2) and that writ was filed for quashing suspension order, consequently that writ was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 21.1.1986 so that the petitioner may file a departmental appeal. Then in paragraph 11 of the writ in hand the petitioner asserted that no evidence was adduced in his presence nor the petitioner was given any opportunity to produce his defence before the departmental enquiry and his service was terminated hurriedly. When against that departmental enquiry, a departmental appeal was filed before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, who is the competent authority to her the appeal, he by his order dated 2.5.1986 set aside the termination order of the petitioner and the matter was sent back to the Deputy Commissioner to pass appropriate orders (vide Annexure 3). The operative portion of the order passed by the appellate authority reads as follows : - - . . . VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED . . .
(3.) Then it transpires that pursuance of the order passed by the appellate authority, i.e., after the remand of appeal (vide Annexure - 4) the petitioner was directed to file show causes if he so liked. Show cause was filed and by order dated 19.8.1987 (vide Annexure 50). The petitioner was censured and it was further ordered that since the petitioner has remained under suspension for more than 17 years as such, nothing will be paid more than what has been paid as subsistence allowance.;