“3. Mr. Tarkeshwar Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the order of censure. Learned counsel however, submitted that the order of the State Government that the period of suspension would be treated as on duty for the purposes of pension and gratuity but the petitioner would not get anything more than the subsistence allowance already received by him during the period of suspension is invalid, because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the said order was passed. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in M. Gopalkrishna Naida v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1968 Supreme Court 240). There is substance in the contention of learned counsel. The facts of the Supreme Court case were, more or less, similar in the sense that the delinquent officer had been suspended pending the Departmental enquiry. The enquiring officer found the officer not guilty, but the Government disagreed with that finding and served a notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed. Subsequently, the Government held that the charges against the officer were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It also held that the suspension and the Departmental enquiry “were not wholly unjustified”. The order further directed, inter alia, that the entire period of absence from duty should be treated as period spent on duty under Fundamental Rule 54(5) for purposes of pension only, but that he should not be allowed any pay beyond what he had actually received or what was allowed to him by way of subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension. The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rule 54 contemplates a duty to act in accordance with the basic concept of justice and fair play. The authority has to afford a reasonable opportunity to the officer concerned to show cause why clauses (3) and (5) should not be applied. In that case the order was held to be invalid as no reasonable opportunity to the officer to show cause was given. Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, is in pari materia with rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have been given an opportunity to show cause why clauses (3) and (5) of Rule 97 should not be applied in his case. As that had not been done, the application is allowed and the impugned portion of the order contained in Annexure 1 which reads “The period of suspension be treated as on duty for the purposes of pension and gratuity but he will not get anything more beyond the subsistence grant already received by him during the period of suspension” is struck down as invalid. It would be open to the competent authority to consider the question de novo, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to
