Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing that part of order dated 28.11.2013, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna by which the pay and emoluments, apart from what has already been paid during the period of suspension of the petitioner, has been directed to be forfeited as also for quashing the order dated 14.06.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that he was appointed as a Constable in the Bihar Police on 25.04.1991. The petitioner is stated to have been arrested while he was on leave and sent to judicial custody in connection with one Dalsing Sarai P.S. Case No. 36 of 2006 on 05.03.2006, whereafter a letter was sent to the petitioner on 02.05.2006 to report for election duty, however, since the petitioner could not report for election duty, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and charges were framed vide letter dated 05.05.2006. The petitioner is stated to have been enlarged on bail on 30.04.2007, whereafter, he had submitted his show cause reply on 27.05.2008, however, by an order dated 16.07.2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. In the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court by a judgment dated 11.04.2011. In such view of the matter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna vide order dated 07.07.2011, in light of acquittal of the petitioner in the pending criminal case, had quashed the order of punishment dated 16.07.2008, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner in service and had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna to get the disciplinary proceedings conducted afresh qua the petitioner herein, whereafter the Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry afresh and had found the petitioner to be not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, by the impugned order dated 28.11.2013 has though exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, however, has passed an order directing that nothing else than what has already been paid during the period of suspension shall be paid to the petitioner herein. The said order dated 28.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal, however, the same has also stood rejected by the impugned order dated 14.06.2014.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has not only been exonerated from the criminal charges but also in the departmental proceeding initiated against him, he should not be penalized for no fault of his by not making payment of his pay and emoluments other than what has been paid during the course of his suspension. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Rule 841 (2) (a) of the Bihar Police Manual to submit that in case the delinquent is fully exonerated, he is required to be paid full pay, apart from relying on Rule 13(3) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, however, this Court finds that the same pertains to cases where dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a government servant is set aside by a Court and then in such cases the intervening period shall be treated as on duty for all purposes and the government servant shall be paid full pay and allowances for the said period, however the present case lies on a different footing. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following judgments: –

(i) Judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Arbind Kumar Khan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2020(1) PLJR 191 [: 2020 (1) BLJ 780];

(ii) Judgment rendered by a coordi