Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of direction upon the respondents for payment of his due salary with effect from October 1991 till date. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner till date is working under the respondents and despite specific direction, issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13078 of 1992, the authorities concerned are not releasing the due salary of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the District Education Officer vide letter dated 26.6.1998 took a decision that the petitioner is entitled for payment of his salary in the manner he was getting earlier, but till date payment has not been made. 4. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is gathered that since the petitioner was facing the criminal charges, his salary was withheld and allegation has been made against the petitioner to the extent that he had forged his appointment letter in connivance with other officials and, thus, his appointment itself is doubtful. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that so far criminal charge is concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted and till date no disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him for the alleged forgery committed by him in regard to his appointment letter and, thus, in absence of a departmental proceeding authorities have no jurisdiction to withhold his salary. 6. This Court having noticing all these facts vide order dated 28.4.2004 deferred this matter enabling counsel for the State to file a supplementary counter affidavit stating therein as to under what circumstances salary of the petitioner is being withheld despite his acquittal in the criminal case. 7. A supplementary counter affidavit, accordingly, has been filed reiterating the same version as stated in the earlier counter affidavit. It still remains that the petitioner has been acquitted for the criminal i charge and till date there is no departmental proceeding pending against him. 8. The question as to whether salary of a Government servant can be withheld in absence of a departmental proceeding or a criminal charge has been set at rest by this Court in cases of Ram Pati Mishra and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [(2001)3 Patna Law Journal Reports 462]. 8. The question as to whether salary of a Government servant can be withheld in absence of a departmental proceeding or a criminal charge has been set at rest by this Court in cases of Ram Pati Mishra and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [(2001)3 Patna Law Journal Reports 462]. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that salary of a Government servant cannot be withheld for an indefinite period in absence of a departmental proceeding. The order of the learned Single Judge, as passed in case of Ram Pati Mishra (supra) was approved by a Bench of this Court in case of Radha Kumari vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [2002(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 794] and it has been held that salary of a Government servant cannot be withheld in absence of a departmental proceeding or criminal charge. 9. In the case at hand, it is admitted fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and no departmental proceeding is pending against him. 10. Learned counsel for the State, however, contended that the order of acquittal may be challenged by the authorities and they may initiate a proceeding against the petitioner. 11. The assertion made by learned counsel for the State, in my opinion, is without any basis and unless the order of acquittal is set aside by a competent Court or a departmental proceeding is initiated against him, the due salary of the petitioner cannot be withheld. 12. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the salary of the petitioner without any rhyme or reason is highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. 13. In the result, this application is allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to release the salary of the petitioner and to pay the same to him forthwith and not later than a period of three months from today. 14. No order as to costs.