The court's decision emphasized the need for the suspending authority to review the suspension and the limitation on the court's interference with the disciplinary authority's actions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for 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 his suspension on 07.02.2018 till the period such suspension is continued.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the memo no. 975 dated 07.02.2018 issued under the signature of Deputy Secretary, Transport Department whereunder the petitioner has been put under suspension in terms of Rules 9(1)(c) of CCA Rules, 2005 as the suspension is based not only on nonexistent grounds (Annexure-4 Pg, __) but it has become protracted outlived its object and purpose after the lapse of prolonged time, especially since when in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been exonerated.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities, to accept the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on 31.08.2020 and thereafter, discharge the petitioner from the charges framed against him or drop the departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to revoke the suspension of the petitioner with immediate effect on basis of the enquiry report dated 31.08.2020 with all consequential benefits.

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

(vi) 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 07.02.2018 to till date in terms or Rule 13(2) (1) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

(vii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to drop/quash the proceeding in view of the enquiry report dated 31.08.2020 and to take a final decision based on this enquiry report in terms of the General Administration Department letter no. 2763 dated 26.02.2014 issued by the General Administration Department.

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

3. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.02.2018 vide Memo No. 975 by the State Government while invoking Rules 9(1)(c) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (For short “Rules 2005”).

4. Grievance of the petitioner are in three fold, namely, payment of subsistence allowance, revocation of suspension and acceptance of enquiring officer’s report by the disciplinary authority.

5. For payment of subsistence allowance, petitioner has not approached the suspending authority, namely, Government. Therefore, petitioner is hereby directed to approach the State Government/suspending authority in seeking payment of subsistence allowance. If such representation/application is submitted, the competent authority is hereby directed to pass speaking order. If petitioner is otherwise eligible for subsistence allowance, the same shall be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of petitioner’s application/representation.

6. Revocation of suspension dated 07.02.2018 is concerned, it is to be noted that enquiry proceedings has prolonged for these many years and it has not attained finality. Therefore, in all fairness, the suspending authority should have resorted to und