Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.21130 OF 2012 =================================================== MANOJ KUMAR SON OF LATE BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF B-103, PEOPLE’S CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, KANKARBAGH, POLICE STATION - KANKARBAGH, DISTT - PATNA .... .... PETITIONER/S SPECIAL VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SINCHAI BHAWAN, P.S. - SACHIVALYA, DIST - PATNA. 2.THE RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SINCHAI BHAWAN, P.S. - SACHIVALYA, DIST. - PATNA. 3.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HAVING HIS OFFICE AT ANISHABAD, P.S. - GARDANIBAGH, DIST. - PATNA. 4.THE PROTECTION CIRCLE, MITHAPUR, DISTT - PATNA. SUPERINTENDING SECRETARY, ENGINEER, WATER GANGA SONE .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== WITH MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE NO.6635 OF 2012 =================================================== MANOJ KUMAR S/O LATE BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD R/O B - 103, PEOPLES CO - OPERATIVE COLONY, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTT. - PATNA .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, THE SRI S.K. NEGI THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SINCHAI BHAWAN, P.S. SACHIVALYA, DISTT. - PATNA 2.SRI SHYAM KISHORE SINGH, THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT HAVING HIS OFFICE AT SICHAI BHAWAN, P.S. SACHIVALYA, DISTT. - PATNA 3.SRI INDRAJEET SAXSENA, THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT P.S. GARDANIBAGH, DISTT. PATNA 4.SRI NARENDRA KUMAR, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, GANGA SONE FLOOD PROTECTION CIRCLE, MITHAPUR, PATNA .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.21130 of 2012)& (In MJC No.6635 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, Sr. Adv, Mr. Mukeshwr Dayal, Adv and Mr. Vikas Mohan. For the Respondents:Mr. D.K. Sinha, AAG-2. Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4/ 21-03-2013 Heard Mr. Vinod Kanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D.K Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of State. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application which was filed on 07.11.2012 reads as follows:- "That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the memo no. 1102 dated 10.10.2012 issued by the order of Governor and the same was signed by the Special Secretary to the Government by which the petitioner has been suspended under rule-9(1)(a) of the Bihar Classification, Control & Appeal Rules." 3. It has to be noted that when the present writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 21130/2012, was heard on 30.11.2012 the operation of the order of suspension dated 10.10.2012 was stayed until further orders. The petitioner in fact has alleged violation of the aforementioned interim order and has filed the contempt application, M.J.C.No. 6635/2012 on 18.12.2012 wherein it was alleged that despite the order of stay of suspension passed by this Court on 30.11.2012 Sri Narendra Kumar the Superintending Engineer Ganga Sone Flood Protection Circle, Patna (Opposite Party No. 4) Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 3 had rejected the joining of the petitioner on 5.12.2012 and when the petitioner had brought this fact to the notice of the Principal Secretary of Water Resources Department he had also been allowed the petitioner to join his post. 4. During the pendency of the writ application the petitioner had also been served with the memo of charge dated 17.1.2013 and that has been separately assailed by filing I.A.No. 2302/2013, wherein a prayer has been made for also quashing the same alongwith the order of suspension dated 10.10.2012.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. Binod Kanth, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the order of suspension has been passed on wrong and incomplete facts. In this regard he has explained that the allegation made in the order of suspension is actually not at all referable to the petitioner because the event described therein had taken place against the Government property situated at Karbigahia was under Punpun Flood Protection Division, Patna City headed by another Executive Engineer whereas the petitioner was posted at a different division i.e. Sone Canal Division, Khagaul which has absolutely no concern with the said Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 4 construction of multi-storeyed building on a piece of government land. Mr. Kanth in this regard has emphasised that even the alleged misconduct did not relate to the territorial jurisdiction of the petitioner and yet this fact has not been taken into account by the higher authorities while passing the impugned order of suspension. In this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022. 6. Apart from the main attack against the order of suspension of its being based on non est and non-existing materials the order of suspension has also been described to be malicious and malafide. Additinally, Mr. Kanth has also assailed the order of suspension and issuance of memo of charge on the ground of violation of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.11.2012. He has in this regard submitted that any action taken by the authorities in violation of the order of this Court is nullity in the eye of law and the memo of charge issued against the petitioner on 7.1.2013 has to be necessarily held to be bad as it seeks to cause violation of the interim order passed by this Court dated 30.11.2012. He has Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 5 also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal Vs. Ugrasen, reported in 2010(11) SCC 557 laying down the proposition of any action taken by the authority in violation of the Court order is nullity in the eye of law. 7. Mr. Kanth has raised an issue that the petitioner is an aged person of around 59 years and is hardly left with the service of little more than one year and has accordingly submitted that in such a situation fixing the headquarter of the petitioner under suspension at Muzaffarpur will be of no avail save and except causing harassment to the petitioner. He has also highlighted that if the headquarter of the petitioner is allowed to be at Patna instead of Muzaffarpur, the departmental enquiry against
Decision
him could be disposed of at any early date. 8. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned AAGII, appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has submitted that the order of suspension of the petitioner was passed in contemplation of a departmental proceeding which was well within the powers of the State Government in terms of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. He has also explained that when the matter Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 6 of encroachment over the land of Water Resources Department situated near and in the office premises of Punpun Flood Protection Division, Karbigahiya was brought into the knowledge of the higher authorities a fact finding enquiry was conducted by the senior officers of the Department in course of which it was detected that on the basis of a forged and unregistered deed of lease some encroachers had encroached upon the precious land of the Department on which an apartment was also being constructed. In course of fact finding enquiry it also got revealed from a zerox copy of the deed of lease received from the Addl. Collector, Patna that it did not bear the signature of any authority of Water Resources Department nor the year of execution had been mentioned therein. The authorities in fact after being satisfied that the said deed was never executed by the Water Resources Department had found that the Chainman of the Sub-Divisional Office, Naubatpur, namely, Roop Nasndan Sharma and the Moharrir Arjun Sah had fraudulently attested a zerox copy of the said deed as the true copy and on that basis a rent receipt was issued on 9.8.1986 by one Md. Idris, the then S.D.O., Naubatpur for the period 1991-92 to 1998-99. The second rent receipt Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 7 thereafter was issued by Shashi Ranjan Kumar Pandey, the then S.D.O. on 29.8.2000 for the period 1999-2000 to 2001-02. The other rent receipts for subsequent period were also issued by the successor S.D.O. of the said Sub-division of Sone Canal Division, Khagaul till the year 2012 and all of them went to show that the officials of the Department had tried to validate the encroachment upon precious land of the Government in connivance with the encroachers. 9. Referring to paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit Mr. Sinha has stated that the role of the petitioner in this clandestine deal was also discovered, inasmuch as the encroachers had sought permission from him to give a No Objection Certificate for construction of the apartment over the aforesaid land. In this regard it has also been explained that the said permission was sought from the petitioner because he was posted as Executive Engineer in Sone Canal Division, Khagaul who is the custodian of the departmental land since 2010. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had illegally directed the S.D.O., Sone Canal Sub-division, Naubatpur vide his letter dated 19.1.2011 to submit report on Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 8 the application of the encroachers seeking no objection and when the S.D.O., Sone Canal Sub- division, Naubatpur had submitted his report on 24.1.2011 requesting the petitioner not to grant such No Objection Certificate to the encroachers for construction of the apartment over the said Government land, the petitioner had compelled the S.D.O., Naubatpur vide his letter dated 3.2.2011 to submit report in favour of the encroachers. It is in this regard that the respondents in their counter affidavit have also stated that the petitioner did not intimate the higher authorities of Water Resources Department about the said encroachment and the encroachers had therefore succeeded in getting the map passed from the Patna Municipal Corporation for construction of the apartment over the said government land of Water Resources Department. 10. Mr. Sinha has accordingly explained that in conspiracy of the illegal alienation of the Government land of Water Resources Department the Government had accordingly found primafacie involvement of the two Executive Engineers including the petitioner and four Assistant Engineers and all of them had been subjected to criminal prosecution as also were placed under suspension in contemplation of the Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 departmental proceeding. 9 11. As with regard to violation of the interim order passed by this Court on 30.11.2012 Mr. Sinha has explained that issuance of memo of charge dated 7.1.2013 strictly would not amount to violation of the order of this Court because it was only the order of suspension which was stayed by this Court but then he had accepted that the Superintending Engineer ought not to have rejected joining report of the petitioner. He has, however, referred to the averment made in the contempt application to establish that the allegation of committing contempt was confined only to the Superintending Engineer. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court an order of suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding is well permissible within the ambit of Rule 9 of 2005 Rules and in this regard Rule 9(1) being relevant is quoted hereinbelow: Order “9. appointing authority or any authority to suspension.-(1) The of which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government by general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension when- (a) a disciplinary proceeding against the Government Servant is contemplated or Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 10 is pending, or (b) in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, the government servant has engaged himself or herself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State, or (c) a case against the government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the Government Servant in public interest.” 13. The order of suspension of the petitioner dated 10.10.2012 reading as follows: ^^fcgkj ljdkj ty lalk/ku foHkkx vf/klwpuk iVuk] fnukad 10-10-12 vf/klwpuk la[;k 22@fu0fl0 …iV0‰ 3&12@2012 1102@Jh eukst dqekj] dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark lksu ugj izeaMy [kxkSy dks iququ ck<+ lqj{kk izeaMy] djfcxfg;k] iVuk ds vUrxZr ty lalk/ku foHkkx ds tehu ij tkylkth dj cgqeaftyh bZekjr fuekZ.k esa mudh lfdz; vUrfyZIrrk ,oa lfdz; Hkwfedk jgus ds izFke nq"V;k izekf.kr vkjksi ds fy;s fcgkj ljdkjh lsod …oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy‰ fu;ekoyh 2005 ds fu;e&9 …1‰…d‰ ds rgr rRdky izHkko ls fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gSA 2- fuyaacu dh vof/k esa Jh dqekj dks fu;ekuqlkj vuqekU; thou fuokZg HkRrk ns; gksxkA 3- fuyacu dh vof/k esa Jh dqekj dk eq[;ky; eq[; vfHk;ark dk dk;kZy;] ty lalk/ku foHkkx] eqtIQjiqj fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 4- Jh dqekj ds fo:n~/k foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh pykus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ls lacaf/kr ladYi vyx ls fuxZr fd;k tk jgk gSA fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns’k ls g0@& 10@10@12 …’;ke dqekj flag‰ Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 11 ljdkj ds fo’ks"k lfpoA Kkikad 1102 @iVuk] fnukad 10-10-12** will also leave nothing for speculation that such order of suspension of the petitioner, in terms of Rule 9(1)(a) was in contemplation of the departmental proceeding for which the memo of charge was to be separately issued. 14. As noted above, the allegation against the petitioner and other five Engineers is of making conspiracy for allowing construction of a multi-storeyed building on the Government land belonging to the Water Resources Department. There is no dispute that the petitioner had even in capacity of the Executive Engineer, Khagaul given direction to to Sub-divisional Officer, Naubatpur to submit his comment as would be evident from letter no. 123 dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure-6). If the petitioner’s plea of not at all being concerned with the affairs of Naubatpur (Punpun) Division has to be accepted, there was also no occasion for him to write a letter to the S.D.O., Naubatpur. In fact the application, as contained in Annexure 6, of the six encroachers addressed to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Sone Canal Division, Khagaul requesting for issuance of No Objection Certificate and its being entertained by the petitioner as also his writing letter on Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 12 19.1.2011 on that very application would primafacie bring him within the fold of the conspiracy for which the order of suspension had been passed not only against him but also against five other engineers. 15. This Court is also not in a position to accept the submissin of Mr. Kanth that the petitioner had no business with the affairs of Punpun Division, inasmuch as even when he was given a point blank report by the Assistant Engineer, Naubatpur on 24.1.2011 with a clear intimation that the builder cannot be given permission for constructing the building, the petitioner in capacity of the Executive Engineer, Khagaul had still insisted by his letter no. 251 dated 3.2.2012 for not only submitting a favourable report but also for appearing before him for giving misleading information as with regard to issuance of No Objection Certificate. This Court, therefore, would not be in a position to hold that the petitioner had not played any role but then as all these are matter of enquiry for which the memo of charge has been issued against the petitioner on 7.1.2013 this court would also not like to make any further observation as that may amount to prejudging the issue which is to be Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 13 examined in course of departmental enquiry. The relevant portion of the memo of charge infact against the petitioner reads as follows: ^^vkjksi iquiqu ck<+ lqj{kk ize.My] djfcxfg;k] iVuk ds vUrxZr ty lalk/ku foHkkx dh cgqewY; ljdkjh tehu dk QthZ nLrkost rS;kj dj tehu dks vfrdzfer djrs gq, ml ij cgqeaftyh bekjr …vikVZesaV‰ fuekZ.k dh dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh gSA vkjksi la0&1& tkylkth ds }kjk cgqeaftyh Hkou cukus gsrq vkils fnukad 10-01-11 dks ekaxh xbZ vuqefr dks vekU; djus dh Rofjr dkjZokbZ djus dh vko’;drk Fkh ijUrq tku cq> dj vkids }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSaA vkjksi la0&2& voj vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh] ukScriqj ds }kjk vuqefr ugha nsus gsrq Hksts x;s izfrosnu ij vkids }kjk voj vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh dks i= nsuk fd ,slk izfrosnu Hkstuk lgh dk;Z ugha gS] ;g vkids }kjk voj vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh dks /kedkus dh dkjZokbZ gSaA bl izdkj vkidk bl tkylkth esa lfdz; lgHkkfxrk ,oa tkylkth dks ’kg nsuk Li"V :i ls izekf.kr gksrk gS] ftlds fy, vki nks"kh gSA vuq0& 1- izsl drj.k dh izfrA 2- yht dh izfrA 3- fof/k inkf/kdkjh }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu dh izfrA 4- tkylktksa }kjk ekax dh x;h vukifr izek.k i= ls lacaf/kr i= dh Nk;kizfrA 5- voj ize0 ink0 dk i=kad 34 fn0&24-01-11 ,oa dk;Z0 vfHk0 dk i=kad 251 fn0&03-02-11 dh Nk;kizfrA** 16. The issue as to whether the petitioner in capacity of the Executive Engineer, Khagaul could have entertained the application of the encroachers or could have called for a report from the Assistant Engineer, Naubatpur or could have insisted for submitting a favourable report in favour of the encroachers will have a direct bearing on the subject matter of the departmental enquiry and this Court would Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 14 therefore refrain from making any comment on the same as that may prejudice either party especially when the respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a specific plea that it is the Executive Engineer of Sone Canal Division, Khagaul, who is the custodian of the departmental land since 2010. 17. That would bring this Court to the main issue as to whether the order of suspension of the petitioner in contemplation of departmental enquiry can be held to be bad. By- now it is well settled that an order of suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding is well within the powers of the appointing authority. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126, wherein their Lordships after relying on its Constitution Bench judgment in the case of R.P.Kapur v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 787, as also in the case of Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1968 SC 800, as well as in the case of V.P.Gidroniya v. State of M.P., reported in (1970)1 SCC 362 and in the case of Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs v. Tarak Nath Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 15 Ghosh, reported in (1971)1 SCC 734, as well as in the case of U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, reported in 1993 Suppl.(3) SCC 483, had gone to hold as follows: “13.It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as am administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 16 to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc.” 18. It is also not in doubt that there is a criminal case also pending against the petitioner and other Engineers and thus, the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank & anor. v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, reported in (1997)4 SCC 1, will also apply with full force wherein it was held that: “An employee facing criminal prosecution should not be allowed to remain working on the post which would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was being prosecuted.” 19. anxious having given Thus, consideration this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of suspension passed against the petitioner. The reliance placed by Mr. Kantha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 17 Apex Court in the case of J. Ahmen (supra) is also whole misplaced inasmuch as in that failure on the post of the District Magistrate to envisage and control of a riot on the language issue was held to be not a misconduct and his order of punishment was held to be accordingly bad. Infact the case of J.Ahmed (supra) is not an authority on the issue of suspension of a government servant. Moreover as has been held above there are primafacie materials to show involvement of the petitioner and other engineers in taking action on the basis of which the encroachers had been emboldened to occupy the government land for making construction of multistorey building. 20. As noted above, the memo of charge dated 7.1.2013 has already been drawn and served on the petitioner. This Court also is not in a position to accept that such memo of charge should not have been framed and issued against the petitioner because of stay order passed by this Court on 30.11.2012. The order of suspension, as quoted above, would go to show that it was in two parts, namely, placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding and also a departmental proceeding was to be initiated by Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 18 way of framing of charge. The operative portion of the interim order of this Court dated 30.11.2012 had only stayed the operation of the impugned order of suspension dated 10.10.2012 and therefore, the respondents were also not restrained from issuing memo of charge. 21. It is true that the order of suspension of the petitioner has remained stayed till date and therefore, in all fairness the Superintending Engineer, O.P.No.4, in M.J.C.No. 6635/2012, ought to have not rejected joining report on a flimsy ground of obtaining a certified copy of the interim order. If the Superintending Engineer had any doubt as with regard to the web copy of the order of this Court dated 30.11.2012 he ought to have consulted his higher authorities or should have taken opinion from the office of the Advocate General but in no view of the matter this Court can approve his action of passing an order contrary to the spirit of the interim order passed by this Court. 22. The web copy obtained by the petitioner and filed should not have been so casually treated by the Superintending Engineer and to that extent if he was having any doubt he ought to have cleared his doubt from the Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 19 Government Counsel and his passing of order dated 05.12.2012 contrary to the spirit of interim order of this Court cannot be appreciated. The Superintending Engineer opposite party no. 4 is accordingly warned to remain careful in future while dealing with the court’s order. 23. None-the-less the order dated 30.11.2012 was interim in nature and today when the writ application is being heard and is being disposed of without interfering with the impugned order of suspension, no gainful purpose would be served by directing for acceptance of joining of the petitioner, inasmuch as now the petitioner in view of rejection of his prayer will be continuing under suspension. However, as the order of suspension has remained stayed till date, the petitioner would be entitled for payment of his full salary from the date of suspension and till today. 24. In view of the fact that this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension Mr. Kanth, learned Senior counsel, has made two fold submissions, namely: (i) The petitioner’s departmental enquiry must be conducted within a fixed time frame. Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 20 (ii) The petitioner’s Headquarters should be fixed anywhere Patna itself instead of Muzaffarpur. 25. Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned AAGII, has submitted that the respondents will have no objection in concluding the departmental proceeding within a fixed time frame provided the petitioner co-operates in the departmental proceeding. He has also submitted that in order to expedite the departmental enquiry on day to day basis the Government will have also no difficulty in changing the headquarter of the petitioner during the period of suspension from Muzaffarpur to Patna. 26. In view of above, this writ application is disposed of with the following observations and directions: (a) The impugned order of suspension will remain in force till a final order is passed in the pending departmental proceeding against the petitioner. (b) The petitioner’s headquarter during the period of suspension will be in any office of Water Resources Department at Patna (c) The petitioner shall file his written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. (d) The Enquiry Officer must make Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 21 his best endeavour to complete the departmental enquiry and submit his enquiry report within a period of three months from the date of filing of written statement of defence by the petitioner. (e) The enquiry report will be examined by the disciplinary authority within a period of 15 days of its receipt from enquiry officer and if the disciplinary authority proposes to inflict any punishment on the petitioner, the copy of enquiry report alongwith a show cause notice must be served on the petitioner within next 15 days i.e. within one month of submission of the enquiry report. (f) The petitioner must file his comment/ reaction to the enquiry report as well as reply to the show cause notice within 15 days of the receipt of the copy of the enquiry report alongwith the show cause notice. (g) The final order after considering show cause reply as well as comment/ reaction to the enquiry report filed by the petitioner must be passed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner. (h) The petitioner’s arrears salary from the date of suspension till today must be paid to him within one month from the date of receipt of this order and his subsistence allowance also must be paid to him on month to month basis if he remains present in the headquarters and co- operates in the departmental enquiry. (i) If the petitioner does not co- operate in the departmental proceeding it Patna High Court CWJC No.21130 of 2012 (4) dt.21-03-2013 22 will be open for the Enquiry Officer as also disciplinary authority to proceed ex- parte and conclude the proceeding as well as pass final order within the aforementioned time frame. 27. It is also made clear that as the petitioner himself has prayed for early disposal of the departmental proceeding it will not be open for him to raise question of pendency of criminal case as a bar for holding the departmental proceeding. 28. Any party violating the aforementioned directions contained in this order will be liable for being proceeded under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 29. With the aforementioned observation and direction, both the writ application and the contempt petition are disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)