SHARAFAT HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ramawatar Sharma learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader No. IV.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the office order issued under the signature of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide memo No. 987 dated 25.6.1993 whereby he has ordered that the petitioner will not be entitled to anything save and except subsistence allowance on the basis of the report submitted by the disciplinary authority in the departmental proceeding.

(3.) AS noticed above the petitioner was suspended on various charge and the departmental proceeding continued for about nine years and it was only a few months before the superannuation of the petitioner the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner and that too without giving any second show cause notice to him. It is well settled that in case employee is put under suspension during the pendency of the departmental inquiry and subsequently he was re -instated in service then in that case any direction restricting payment of pay and allowances other than subsistence allowance cannot be taken without giving the employee an opportunity to show cause as to why Clause (3) and (5) of Rule 97 should not be applied. Reference in this connection may be made to a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad V/s. State of Bihar. 1988 PLJR 88. In my opinion therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.