S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - (1.) This application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order, contained in Memo No. 3099 dated 10th November, 2001, issued by the D.S.E., Dumka, whereby and whereunder, it has been ordered that the petitioners will not get any salary for the period of suspension.
(2.) It appears that proceedings were initiated as in surprise inspection, the petitioners and some others were found absent on a day and they were placed under suspension, vide order dated 12th April, 2001. It is only after receipt of reply and submission of enquiry report, the impugned order has been issued by the D.S.E., Dumka.
(3.) It may be mentioned that the order relating to non -payment of salary for the period of suspension is not punishment, thus the impugned order No. 3099 dated 10th November, 2001 to that extent is wrong, wherein it is mentioned that the non -payment of salary for the period of suspension has been passed by way of punishment. In fact, the order dated 10th November, 2001 relating to payment of salary for the period of suspension should have been passed under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code in the light of finding of the Enquiry Officer.;