AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenging the action of the respondents as
contained in Annexure-6 dated 05.11.2007 to this writ petition,
as far as it directs for confirming the period of suspension and
non-grant of salary except the subsistence allowance already
paid, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Facts in brief goes to show that on account of arrest of
the petitioner and confining him to custody, a charge-sheet was
issued to the petitioner. However, as a consequence in the
criminal case, the suspension which was effected automatically
due to his arrest in the criminal case by virtue of Rule-9 of the
Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules
was revoked and the impugned action was taken and that after
confirming the period of absence from 30.04.1994 to
24.03.1996, it is held that petitioner shall not be entitled to any
wages on the principle of ''no work no wages''. The challenge is
made to the order confirming the period of suspension and
awarding the punishment of withholding of salary beyond the
subsistence allowance is primarily on account of fact that this
action taken by the competent authority under Rule 97(3) of the
Bihar Service Code and that has been done without notice to the
petitioner and without hearing him is illegal in view of the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Chakradhar Das vs.
State of Bihar [2007 (3) PLJR 835]. Admittedly, the petitioner
was taken into custody, faced the criminal case and during the
pendency of the matter he was in custody and remained absent
because of the same. The petitioner was deemed to have been
suspended once he was taken into custody and thereafter on his
acquittal in the criminal case no further departmental action was
taken and he was reinstated but for the period of absence was
treated as the period to be on the principle of ''no work no
wages. However, by doing so, action has been taken for
confirming the period of suspension and directing that for the
period of suspension no salary shall be paid to him. While in
exercising the power by the authority under Rule 93(7) of the
Bihar Service Code, the requirement of law as laid down in the
case of Chakradhar Das (supra) has not been followed,
wherein the law laid down is that for denying the full salary to
an employee like the petitioner who is under suspension, in
exercise of Rule 97(3) of the Code, a show-cause notice on the
charge framed to be issued and this having not been followed,
the impugned action suffers from illegality and is unsustainable
and is to be quashed.
The direction contained in Annexure-6 confirming the
period of suspension of the petitioner and denying him the
benefit of full salary beyond the subsistence allowance stands
quashed.
The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.