Patna High Court
Vijay Kumar Sharma@ Vijay SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation and the SSP, Patna to pass a reasoned order within stipulated time, thereby disposing of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner, a senior police officer about to retire, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State and police officials to pay the amount due for his suspension period with interest, relying on a prior judgment of this Court dated 30‑11‑2017. The petitioner argued that the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patna, had failed to act on the earlier order and therefore was liable to make the payment. The State contended that the earlier judgment only required the SSP to re‑examine the matter after giving the petitioner an opportunity, not to make an immediate payment. The Court examined Rule 11 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which obliges the disciplinary authority to decide on payment of suspension amounts when rendering the final order. Finding that the SSP had not complied with the court’s direction, the Court quashed the impugned memo dated 20‑03‑2012 and directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation within 30 days and the SSP to issue a reasoned order within 90 days, also deciding on eligibility and due amount. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents are bound to pay the petitioner the due suspension amount with interest as per the earlier judgment.
- Whether the order dated 20‑03‑2012 issued by the SSP, Patna, is valid or must be set aside.
- Whether the SSP, Patna, must pass a reasoned order after the petitioner is given a fresh opportunity to represent his grievances.
- Interpretation of Rule 11 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 regarding the disciplinary authority's duty to decide on payment of suspension period.
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- suspension pay
- government servant rules
- disciplinary authority
- procedural fairness
- Rule 11 Bihar Government Servant Rules
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8181 of 2024
======================================================
Vijay Kumar Sharma@ Vijay Sharma Son of Late Shiv Nandan Singh
Resident of Village Oiyoura, P.O.- Bir, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna,
(Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Patna.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indu Shekhar Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (25)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 28-01-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-
1. That, this writ application by the
petitioner (who is going to be retire from the post
of S.I.) citizen of India, for issuance of writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) / order
(s)/ direction (s) to command and direct the
respondents / Authorities to pay the due amount
withhold one annual increment vide memo No.4697
dated 20.03.2012 order passed by Respondent No.3
and order under Memo No.38 dated 28.01.2014
passed by the Respondent No.2 and due amount of
suspension period of the petitioner with interest
forthwith in the light of Judgment dated 30.11.2017
passed by this Hon'ble Court and / or to allow
other suitable relief in facts and circumstances of
the case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8181 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the
order dated 30.11.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court, specific
direction was given to the S.S.P., Patna that he would be at
liberty to examine the matter afresh after giving opportunity to
the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. Counsel further submits that the S.S.P., Ptna has not
opted to pass order and therefore, he is entitled to get the said
due amount of suspension period.
5. Counsel for the State on the other hand, submits
that there was no specific direction to make payment to the
petitioner of due amount of suspension period with interest
rather opportunity was granted to the S.S.P., Patna to examine
the matter afresh and after granting opportunity to the petitioner
in accordance with law.
6. In the light of the submissions made, this Court
particularly considering Rule 11 of the Bihar Government
Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which
states that the Disciplinary Authority at the time of taking
decision on the final order, shall decide on the payment of
amount of suspension period. Here in the present case, S.S.P.,
Patna has not proceeded according to the petitioner and has not
taken decision in compliance of Hon’ble Court’s order
Patna High Court CWJC No.8181 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
mentioned above. The operative part of the order is stated as
follows:-
“In view of the admitted position that the
disagreement has been recorded without affording
any opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned
order dated 20.03.2012 as contained in Memo
No.4697 issued by the SSP, Patna is quashed. The
SSP, Patna would however, be at liberty to examine
the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the
petitioner in accordance with law.”
7. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition
is hereby disposed off directing the petitioner to file a fresh
representation raising all his grievances before the S.S.P., Patna
(respondent No.3) within 30 days along with this order and the
respondent No.3 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within
90 days after receiving the same.
8. It is also directed to respondent No.3 to take
decision on the point of eligibility and due amount of
suspension period also.
9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the
present writ application stands disposed off.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
U
Checking your session…