JUDGMENT
Nagendra Rai, J.
1. Originally the writ application was filed for a direction to the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner for the period while he was under suspension in view of pendency of the departmental proceeding. Subsequently, an amendment petition was filed, wherein the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, dated 13.7.1998, has been challenged. A copy of the said order has been appended as Annexure-9. By the said order, after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, has awarded the punishment of censure and non-entitlement of full salary during the period of suspension.
2. The facts, which gave rise to the present writ application, are that the petitioner was posted as the Sub-Inspector of Police in Nalanda district. In the year 1992, he was transferred to Crime-Investigation Department, Patna. As he did not join the transferred post, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. While proceeding was pending, the petitioner superannuated on 31.3.1996. Taking Into consideration the aforesaid fact, the then Superintendent of Police dropped the proceeding. Later on, when the petitioner demanded payment of his salary of the period of suspension, the matter was again considered, the Superintendent of Police and he revived the proceeding and by the Impugned order awarded the aforesaid two punishments.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 9, is without jurisdiction for the reason that one of the departmental proceeding was dropped, the Superintendent of Police has no power to revive the proceeding only superior officer under Rule 853 of the Bihar Police Manual has power to recall/review the order passed In a departmental proceeding.
4. Learned Counsel for the State has not been able to show any provision under the Bihar Police Manual authorizing the disciplinary authority to recall or review his order dropping the proceeding.
5. In view of the admitted fact that the earlier proceeding was dropped by the then Superintendent of Police, the other Superintendent of Police was not justified in reviving the proceeding, specially when there is no provision under the Bihar Police Manual empowering him to revive the proceeding. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 13.7.1998 as contained in Annexure 9, is without jurisdiction and, accordingly, it is quashed. The effect of the quashing of the aforesaid order is that the petitioner is entitled to payment of salary of the period during which he was under suspension and, accordingly the authorities are directed to pay the salary of the petitioner for the said period.
6. In the result, this writ application stands disposed of with aforesaid direction.