Suspension period pay under Bihar Service Code depends on full exoneration, justified suspension, and competent authority discretion.

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code distinguishes between cases of full exoneration or wholly unjustified suspension and all other cases. Where the employee is not fully exonerated and the suspension is not found wholly unjustified, Rule 97(3) permits only such pay and allowances as the competent authority prescribes, and the suspension period is not treated as duty for all purposes unless a specific direction is issued under Rule 97(5). The text also notes that a mere failure to sustain the disciplinary punishment does not, by itself, create a general right to full salary for the suspension period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code; (ii) whether the suspension period was required to be treated as duty for all purposes.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code.

Analysis: Rule 97(2) applies where the authority is of the opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or that the suspension was wholly unjustified. In all other cases, Rule 97(3) governs and authorises payment of only such proportion of pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe. The petitioner was neither fully exonerated nor found to have been under wholly unjustified suspension, and the case therefore fell in the residuary category under Rule 97(3). The Court also held that the relevant decisions cited by the petitioner did not establish a general right to full salary merely because a disciplinary proceeding ended without the specific punishment being sustained.

Conclusion: The claim for full salary for the suspension period was rejected and the case was held to fall under Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code.

Issue (ii): Whether the suspension period was required to be treated as duty for all purposes.

Analysis: Under Rule 97(4), treatment of the period as duty for all purposes follows only where the case falls under Rule 97(2). Where the case falls under Rule 97(3), Rule 97(5) applies, and the period of absence is not to be treated as duty unless the competent authority specifically directs otherwise for a specified purpose. The authority had issued the necessary direction, and the Court found no reason to interfere with that determination. The Court further held that the petitioner had been given a sufficient opportunity to place his case and that a further formal enquiry would have been an empty formality.

Conclusion: The direction treating the suspension period as not spent on duty, except for the stated purpose, was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned punishment was quashed in part, but the refusal of full monetary benefits for the suspension period and the treatment of that period under Rule 97(5) were sustained, resulting in only partial relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suspended Government servant is not fully exonerated and the suspension is not found wholly unjustified, entitlement to pay, allowance, and treatment of the suspension period must be determined under the residuary regime of Rule 97(3) and Rule 97(5) of the Bihar Service Code, subject to the competent authority's discretion.

---