Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.12.2012 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition), whereby petitioner was placed under suspension for noncompliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005.

2. This case for the first time was taken on 14.12.2012 and learned counsel for the respondent State was directed to seek instruction on the averments made in the writ petition. Case was taken up again yesterday i.e. on 17.12.2012 and after hearing both the sides for quite sometime, it was adjourned for today. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is being heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage.

3. Undisputedly, this Court in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005, vide judgment dated 18.10.2008 had directed the respondents of that writ petition to pay the arrears of salary in favour of the petitioner and also to fix pay of the petitioner in the appropriate scale in consonance with the recommendations of the Fitment Committee. This exercise was to be undertaken by the respondents within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

4. Undisputedly, the present petitioner has joined as District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh on 05.07.2012. Undisputedly, for the first time, in the month of November, 2012, a representation (Annexure 1) was placed before the petitioner requesting him to make compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005. Undisputedly, a Contempt Case was also preferred before this Court for noncompliance of the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005. Undisputedly, the judgment of this Court passed in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005 has already been complied with and reply to the show cause issued in Contempt Case has already been filed by the petitioner.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that after joining as District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, on 05.07.2012, he has taken prompt action ensuring the compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005, and without wasting any time after receiving the representation (Annexure 1) on 06.11.2012, entire payment has been released in favour of the petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 900 of 2005 on 06.12.2012 i.e. within 30 days from the date of receiving the representation, therefore, placing the petitioner under suspension, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2012, is totally unjustified, arbitrary and result of non-application of mind.

6. Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently argued that order impugned does not show that any disciplinary enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner for any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. He further argues that although the Government servant can be placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary action or during the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry, however, suspension order cannot be automatic and can only be passed when misconduct is so grave which can result in dismissal or any other major penalty or there is apprehension that while attending the duties, delinquent employee may influence the disciplinary action or may tamper with the evidence. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2296.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Srijit Choudhary, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that in view of Rule 49A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, the appointing authority or the Governor as the case may be, may place a Government servant under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding or during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Choudhary, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Hari Ram Yadav & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 1262, has argued that there is no requirement that order of suspension must contain r