Baban Ram Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Baban Ram vs The State of Bihar and ors.

Disposition Application dismissed Court Patna Decided Jan 07, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/133812

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/133812
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
Decided On: Jan 07, 2008
Subject: ;Service
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon examination of facts, it can be very well deciphered that as a matter of fact, the work entrusted to him was completed and there was no occasion for the Department and the Authorities to file a criminal case which became the basis of his suspension as stated i...

Key legal issue: ;Service
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Baban Ram

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

- - counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon examination of facts, it can be very well deciphered that as a matter of fact, the work entrusted to him was completed and there was no occasion for the department and the authorities to file a criminal case which became the basis of his suspension as stated in the impugned order, dated 12.11.2005. counsel has further submitted that though he has been paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of this writ application, such payment is not in terms of the rules and he is still entitled for payment of some additional amount on the head of subsistence allowance......jha, j.1 heard counsel for the petitioner and the state.the petitioner is aggrieved by order of suspension passed on 12.11.2005 as contained in annexure-3 to the writ application.counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon examination of facts, it can be very well deciphered that as a matter of fact, the work entrusted to him was completed and there was no occasion for the department and the authorities to file a criminal case which became the basis of his suspension as stated in the impugned order, dated 12.11.2005. counsel has further submitted that though he has been paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of this writ application, such payment is not in terms of the rules and he is still entitled for payment of some additional amount on the head of subsistence allowance.2. from the tenor of the order of suspension, it is clear that the petitioner has been put under suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case against him. it is an admitted fact that such criminal case is still continuing against him inasmuch as the police has submitted charge sheet and thereafter cognizance has also been taken by the court and the matter is pending before the trial court. in such view of the matter, the order of suspension which is solely dependent on the fate of the criminal case can not be interfered with by this court. consequently, the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension, dated 12.11.2005 is hereby rejected.3. as with regards to the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid his subsistence allowance as per the rules, counsel for the state has fairly submitted that if any further amount is found payable as per the rules, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date the petitioner files a representation pointing out his claim and admissibility for further subsistence allowance.4. in that view of the matter, the competent authority is hereby directed to ensure that.....

Full Judgment

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved by order of suspension passed on 12.11.2005 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon examination of facts, it can be very well deciphered that as a matter of fact, the work entrusted to him was completed and there was no occasion for the Department and the Authorities to file a criminal case which became the basis of his suspension as stated in the impugned order, dated 12.11.2005. Counsel has further submitted that though he has been paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of this writ application, such payment is not in terms of the rules and he is still entitled for payment of some additional amount on the head of subsistence allowance.

2. From the tenor of the order of suspension, it is clear that the petitioner has been put under suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case against him. It is an admitted fact that such criminal case is still continuing against him inasmuch as the police has submitted charge sheet and thereafter cognizance has also been taken by the Court and the matter is pending before the Trial Court. In such view of the matter, the order of suspension which is solely dependent on the fate of the criminal case can not be interfered with by this Court. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner for revocation of the order of suspension, dated 12.11.2005 is hereby rejected.

3. As with regards to the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid his subsistence allowance as per the rules, Counsel for the State has fairly submitted that if any further amount is found payable as per the rules, the same shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date the petitioner files a representation pointing out his claim and admissibility for further subsistence allowance.

4. In that view of the matter, the Competent Authority is hereby directed to ensure that the petitioner is paid his additional amount of subsistence allowance if admissible to him in terms of the rules within a period of six weeks.

It goes without saying that the petitioner will continue to get his monthly subsistence allowance if he fulfills all the requisite condition as laid down in the service rules.

With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2008 Same Parties Baban Ram vs The State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Service Same Judge Mihir Kumar Jha, J.

;Service