Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2008, delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4790/2004, whereby the petition preferred by the present Respondent No. 1 (Original petitioner) was allowed and hence original respondents have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Factual Matrix It appears that Respondent No. 1 was working as Staff Veterinary Officer, Dumka and he was suspended from services on 16th April, 1996 as a criminal case was registered against him. He was not arrested in the criminal matter. Thereafter, neither enquiry was conducted nor Charge -sheet was given to present Respondent No. 1. Later on, on criminal side Respondent No. 1 was exonerated and his suspension was revoked vide order dated 19th May, 2003 and therefore, respondent No. 1 preferred an application to get salary for the period from 16th April, 1996 to 18th May, 2003, which was not granted by the appellant State and hence Respondent No. 1 had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2004, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22nd December, 2008 and hence Original Respondent No. 1 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Submissions made on behalf of the Appellant -State
(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, State Government has to pass an order for grant of or otherwise of the salary to the delinquent or Respondent No. 1 (Original Petitioner) for the period of his suspension. In fact, while passing the order of his suspension or while passing the order of revocation of suspension such order ought to have been passed by the State under Rule 97(2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, but, in no circumstances, court can grant salary to the original petitioner and, in fact, the matter should have been remanded by the learned Single Judge instead of passing an order granting salary to Respondent No. 1 for the aforesaid period of suspension. Submissions made on behalf of the Respondent No. 1
(3.) Counsel for Respondent No. 1 vehemently submitted that the suspension was never automatic. Respondent No. 1 (original petitioner) was never sent to jail. There is an order of suspension of this respondent dated 16th April, 1996. On criminal side Respondent No. 1 was exonerated from the charges and granted pardon and his suspension was revoked by the appellants on 19th May, 2003. It is further submitted by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1 that neither any charge -sheet was given in the departmental proceeding nor any enquiry has been conducted and ultimately order of revocation of suspension was passed and the suspension was revoked with effect from 19th May, 2003 and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge by allowing W.P.(S) No. 4790 of 2004 and granting salary for the period of suspension. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this court. REASONS;