Judgment 1. The petitioner in this application seeks to challenge the Government resolution, dated 5.3.1997 (Annexure 10) in so far as it denies payment of salary to the petitioner, beyond subsistence allowance, for the period of his suspension. 2. It appears that a disciplinary proceeding was held against the petitioner on certain charges. At the conclusion of the proceeding he was found guilty of the charges and it was directed, by way of punishment, to record a censure in his service book for the year, 1992-93; it was further directed that for the period of suspension the petitioner will not be entitled to any salary beyond the subsistence allowance paid to him. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of his salary for the period of suspension. 4. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that restricted payment of salary for the period of suspension cannot be awarded as a measure of punishment. He further submitted that the direction was bad as it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to show cause. 5. It is true that the denial of full salary for the period of suspension is not one of the punishments enumerated under rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules but that alone would not make the order bad provided the direction can be sustained on the basis of any other statutory provisions. 6. The relevant provision concerning payment of salary etc. for the period of suspension is to be found in rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code which is as follows : "97. (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order (a) regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be. (3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe : Provided that the payment of allowance under clause (2) or clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowance are admissible. (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose : Provided that if the Government servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant." 7. Mr. Chandra Shekhar candidly admitted that the petitioner could not claim payment of full salary for the simple reason that he was not fully exonerated and, therefore, the suspension in his case would not be wholly unjustified. Learned counsel further agreed that the case of the petitioner would, therefore, be covered by sub-rule (3) of rule 97. He, however, submitted that nevertheless the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to show cause and perhaps he might have been able to pursuade the disciplinary authority had an opportunity been afforded that a smaller deduction instead of the total denial of salary for the period of suspension would be more appropriate and proper in the facts of the case. According to him, therefore, the disciplinary authority committed an error in making the direction for payment of restricted salary to the petitioner and adjunct to the order of punishment and in giving the impugned direction without allowing the petitioner an opportunity to show cause. 8. In support of the submission, learned counsel relied up on the decision of this Court in Shri Mahabir Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and ors. 1988 PLJR 82. 8. In support of the submission, learned counsel relied up on the decision of this Court in Shri Mahabir Prasad V/s. State of Bihar and ors. 1988 PLJR 82. In that case a bench of this court upheld the submission that a direction for restricted payment of salary for the period of suspension could be made under rule 97(3) only after giving the concerned employee an opportunity to show cause. 9. He also relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Manzoor Ahmad Mazumdar V/s. State of Meghalaya and ors. (1997) 11 S.C.C. 374 . In that decision the provision of rule 54 in the Assam Fundamental Rule came up for consideration before the Supreme Court. The rule is almost identical in all material aspects to rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code and the decision of the Supreme Court would, therefore, fully apply for understanding the true nature and scope of the Bihar rule. In para 4 of the decision, the Supreme Court held as follows : "In view of the decision in M. Gopalkrishna Naidu it must be held that even though there is no express requirement in Fundamental Rule 54 (3) for giving an opportunity to the employee before passing an order, giving of such an opportunity is implicit in the exercise of the power which has been conferred by the said provision. It was, therefore, necessary for the competent authority to afford an opportunity to the appellant before passing the order regarding pay and allowance payable to the appellant in respect of the period of suspension, (sic absence). Since this was not done in the present ease, the order dated 12.8.1982 cannot be upheld and has to be set aside. For the same reason the impugned judgment of the High Court has also to be set aside, it will be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to the appellant." 10. Mr. Alamdar Husain, learned S.C. VI appearing for the State submitted that rule 97 (3) did not require giving of any show cause notice to the concerned employee and in any event in this case no such opportunity was warranted. In support of his submission be relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. Laxmi Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar and ors., 1989 BLJ 289 . In support of his submission be relied upon a decision of this Court in Dr. Laxmi Narain Singh V/s. State of Bihar and ors., 1989 BLJ 289 . I am unable to see how that decision can help the respondents. In para 12 of that decision it was held as follows : "For the reasons mentioned above, it must be held that the petitioners claim for his entire salary during the period of his suspension has to be decided under rule (3). Since an adverse order against a Government servant afects him financially, it is necessary that before a decision is taken, he is given a reasonable opportunity to place his case and all the relevant circumstances are concerned (sicconsidered ?) by the appropriate authority." 11. Later, in that decision it was observed that the rules of natural justice were not a set of right and inflexible rules and the application of the principle might vary on the facts of each case. It was further held, in the facts of that case, that the requirements of the rules of natural justice were fully satisfied and the petitioner was not entitled to a fresh opportunity. 12. It, thus, appears to me that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and is fit to be accepted. I accordingly set aside the impugned direction that the petitioner would not be entitled to any payment beyond subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. It will be, however, open to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in terms of rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code after giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause, in accordance with law. 13. It is made clear that this court has not interfered with the punishment of censure imposed against the petitioner. 14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above but with no order as to costs.