Suspension period pay and allowances may be ermined after superannuation under Bihar service rules, subject to limited review.

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, read with the Bihar Pension Rules, permits the competent authority to ermine how a suspension period is to be treated where a government servant is not fully exonerated, including after superannuation. Full pay and allowances are due only on full exoneration or where the suspension was wholly unjustified; in other cases, the authority may fix the proportion of pay and allowances and decide whether the period counts as duty, subject to judicial review on limited grounds. The text also states that an earlier decision was not a Full Bench ruling merely because a third Judge was involved; its status depended on the Bench constitution and mode of decision-making.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the competent authority can determine entitlement to pay and allowances for the suspension period after a government servant has superannuated, by applying Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code read with the Bihar Pension Rules; (ii) whether the earlier decision concerning the same rule was to be treated as a Full Bench judgment or a Single Judge judgment.

Issue (i): Whether the competent authority can determine entitlement to pay and allowances for the suspension period after a government servant has superannuated, by applying Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code read with the Bihar Pension Rules.

Analysis: Rule 97 contemplates three situations: full exoneration or wholly unjustified suspension, in which full pay and allowances follow, and other cases, in which the competent authority may determine the proportion of pay and allowances and whether the suspension period is to count as duty. The judgment read Rule 97 with Rule 43(b), Rule 43(c), Rule 99 and Rule 100 of the Bihar Pension Rules and held that superannuation does not extinguish the authority's power to decide how the suspension period is to be treated. Where the employee is not fully exonerated, the matter may be dealt with by notice and a reasoned decision, and judicial review is limited to illegality, irrationality, perversity, or procedural impropriety.

Conclusion: The competent authority does have jurisdiction after superannuation to decide entitlement to salary for the suspension period, and the impugned action was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision concerning the same rule was to be treated as a Full Bench judgment or a Single Judge judgment.

Analysis: The judgment examined the effect of reference to a third Judge under Clause 28 of the Letters Patent and the distinction between a Bench constituted as a Full Bench and a split Bench opinion later reconciled through reference. It held that the earlier decision was not a Full Bench judgment merely because a third Judge had expressed an opinion on a referred point; the decisive factor is the constitution of the Bench and the mode of adjudication in the case.

Conclusion: The earlier decision was held to be a Single Judge judgment, not a Full Bench judgment.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the show-cause notice and consequential order failed, and the authority's decision restricting the petitioner to subsistence allowance was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of full exoneration, the competent authority may, even after superannuation, decide under Rule 97 how the suspension period is to be treated and what pay and allowances are admissible, subject to judicial review only on limited grounds.

---