JUDGMENT : Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J. Writ application of the present appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2014 refusing to interfere with the order of punishment of stoppage of four annual increment with cumulative effect as well as a direction for nonpayment of salary etc. for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. 2. Submission of the counsel representing the appellant is that so far as the second punishment of stoppage of salary for the period of suspension is concerned, since no separate proceeding or opportunity was given to the appellant, therefore, the said decision becomes vulnerable and is in the teeth of a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar, (2006) 4 PLJR 514 . The Division Bench held that for imposing punishment of withholding of salary for the period of suspension, a proceeding under Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code is warranted. If it is not done then it would amount to violations of principles of natural justice. 3. Similar view has been taken even recently in the case of Md. Hanif Khan Vs. The State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 599 . 4. In view of the above and in absence of any rebuttal whether procedure under Rule 97 (3) of the Bihar Service Code has been adopted, the punishment of withholding of salary for the period of suspension is hereby quashed. L.P.A. is allowed limited to the extent indicated above. 5. The respondents are now directed to take steps for payment of salary for the period of suspension preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.