Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 540 (JHR)

Baleshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-05-01

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against Memo No. 1071 dated 7th June, 1997, whereby the Notified Area Committee, Sindri suspended the petitioner. 2. One of the grounds taken by the petitioner is that the order of suspension was passed wrongly showing petitioners designation as Sub-Overseer, though the petitioner is an Anti Malaria Supervisor. The other ground taken is that the respondents have not paid the petitioner the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 3. Further grievance has been made by the petitioner is that though Shri M. Ram, the Executive Magistrate, submitted enquiry report exonerating the petitioner from the charges, but no final order passed by the authority in the departmental proceeding. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Notified Area Committee. Sindri. However, the petitioner has challenged the propriety of the person who has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the Notified Area Committee Sindri. 5. Today when the case was taken up the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner most probably retired from the services of the Notified Area Committee. Sindri having attained the age of superannuation. However, no final decision has been taken in the proceeding. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner has retired from the service, no further order is required to be passed with regard to the order of suspension, as it stands vacated from the date of his retirement. 7. However, if the subsistence allowance of the period of suspension was not given or no final order is passed in the departmental proceeding, on the basis of which it can be determined as to what salary to which the petitioner will be entitled for the period of suspension, the respondents are directed to pass the final order in the departmental proceeding within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in the proceeding, the respondents may proceed ex parte, in accordance with law. 9. In the meantime, the respondents must pay the petitioner the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a month from the period of suspension, as accepted in the counter affidavit, if not yet paid. 8. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in the proceeding, the respondents may proceed ex parte, in accordance with law. 9. In the meantime, the respondents must pay the petitioner the subsistence allowance to the petitioner within a month from the period of suspension, as accepted in the counter affidavit, if not yet paid. They will decide the question of salary for the period of suspension within one month from the date the final decision is taken in the proceeding taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the State from time to time. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Writ disposed of.