TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) AT the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 28.09.1991 (Annexure -20), a punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner in the following terms : (A) For the unauthorized absence for the period 24.04 -1981 to 20.01.1983, the same would be treated to be unauthorized and following the principle of no work no pay, he would not be paid any salary or allowances. (B) The order of suspension shall be treated to be a punishment for the period 1981 -82; and (C) For this period of suspension, he would not be entitled to any payment save and except subsistence allowance. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon perusal of the aforesaid order it is evident that the period for which the petitioner was punished was 24.04.1981 to 20.01.1983 but instead thereof, the respondent have not given any increment or promotion for the other periods.
(3.) FROM the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner was suspended on 21.01.1983 whereafter the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 7170 of 1990 and by order dated 18.12.1990 the High Court passed the following order which inter alia, reads as follows : - - "The Government cannot be allowed to keep its employee in tenterhook for unlimited duration. If the petitioner was guilty of any charge it was incumbent for the State Government to start the departmental proceeding without delay and pass appropriate final order. In view of the fact that the matter is pending since 1983 on the allegation that the petitioner absented himself from April, 1981 we direct the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order with regard to the payment of the balance amount of the salary to the petitioner during the period he was under suspension by February, 1991.";