ORDER

Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioner, in the present case, is seeking the following reliefs: –

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner in accordance with the mandatory requirement laid down in Rule 10(1) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 2005”) for the period commencing from November 2018 till the period such suspension is continued.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing No. 2994 dated 06.06.2017 issued under the signature of State Transport Commissioner, to the extent that the petitioner has been put under suspension again in terms of Rules 9(2) of CCA Rules, 2005, as it has become protracted and outlived its object and purpose after the lapse of a prolonged period of time (Annexure 3, pg.24).

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide memo no. 2995 dated 06.06.2017 for it has been vitiated for non-payment of subsistence allowance (Annexure-5, pg.26).

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and to treat the period of suspension as a period spent on duty, with grant of consequential benefits.

(v) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the remaining portion of the salary of the petitioner, and other consequential benefits, during the period of suspension from 30.12.2016 to till date in terms of Rule 13(2)(i) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

(vi) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to stay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide memo no. 2995 dated 06.06.2017 till the conclusion of the criminal trial in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 158/2016 dated 30.12.2016.

(vii) To any other relief for which the petitioner appears to be found entitled by the Hon’ble Court.”

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order by which his request for revocation of suspension has been rejected vide memo no. 9552 dated 12.12.2022 as contained in Annexure ‘1/1’ to the I.A. No. 01/2023.

4. Learned senior counsel submits that in this case the disciplinary proceeding is pending for last about 4½ years. During the period of suspension, while facing the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has not been paid his subsistence allowance. It is, therefore his submission that the whole disciplinary proceeding would stand vitiated for carrying the same without paying the subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

5. At this stage, this Court has been informed that the petitioner is being paid subsistence allowance w.e.f. 30.09.2022. It is stated that though the current subsistence allowance is being paid but the arrears of subsistence allowance have not been made available to the petitioner.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that from the order as contained in Annexure ‘1/1’, it would appear that the enquiry officer had submitted a report but not being satisfied with the same the disciplinary authority has returned the same to the enquiry officer with a direction to submit a fresh report.

7. It is submitted on the strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary vs. Union of India through it’s Secretary & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 that protracted period of suspension and pendency of the disciplinary proceeding should not be the norm.

Submission on behalf of the State

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has oppo