2025:JHHC:12823 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6293 of 2014 --------- Jagdish Munda, son of Aviram Munda, resident of Village: Tamar, P.O: Tamar, P.S: Tamar, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand; ......Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand; 2. Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi; 3. Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi; 4. Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, State of Jharkhand, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S: Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Roy, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, S.C.-V Mr. Krishna Prajapati, A.C. to S.C.-V --------- 12/Dated:-28.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the order dated 05.12.2011 passed by Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department vide Memo No. 8066(S) and the order dated 30.10.2012 by which Petitioner has been awarded two punishments:- i Punishment of Censor (for the year 2008 & 2009); ii He will not be paid anything other than subsistence allowance during the period of suspension as per Jharkhand Service Code Rule-97; b) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Mandamus' for treating the period of suspension as period spent on duty and payment of the salary for the period of suspension. 3. The fact of the case reveals that by virtue of punishment order dated 05.12.2011, two punishments were 2025:JHHC:12823 2 imposed being (i) Censor, (ii) As per Rule-97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, the Petitioner was denied the full salary for the period of suspension. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the settled proposition of law, while giving punishment under Rule-97 of the Code, the competent authority was duty bound to give a second show cause notice. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice before passing the order under Rule-97 of the Code was ever issued to the petitioner and in absence of any notice, prior to passing of an order, taking recourse of Rule-97 of the Code is not sustainable in law. 5. Way back, the Patna High Court in the case of Basishtha Prasad Sinha Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 605 has laid down the law that before denying a delinquent employee the benefit of full salary and allowance, a second show cause notice is required to be issued under the provisions of Rule-97 of the Service Code. This settled proposition of the law has not been disputed by the respondent-State. 6. Having regard to the admitted fact that no second show cause notice, before passing the order under Rule-97 of the Code, was ever issued to the petitioner, the instant writ application stands allowed with respect to the punishment No.2 only. However, the concerned respondent would be at liberty to proceed in the matter by issuing specific show cause notice with regard to Rule-97 of the Code, if so advised. 2025:JHHC:12823 3 It goes without saying that if the respondent chooses to proceed action with regard to the same, the same shall be completed within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of copy/production of copy of this order; failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled for the balance amount what was not paid due to the punishment No.2. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-