IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16614 of 2010 SHIV JI RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 25/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order the I.G., Prisons dated 18.9.2009 placing him under suspension with retrospective effect from 6.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was posted as Senior Warden at the Motihari Jail he was visited with a punishment order dated 28.7.2008 for alleged lapses by stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. While the previous proceedings were pending, with regard to another occurrence he was placed under suspension by order dated 6.4.2008 and departmental proceedings have also been initiated by service of memo of charges. After the order of punishment dated 28.7.2008, the petitioner was transferred to the Siwan Jail on 11.8.2008 relieving him from suspension. The contention is that after the suspension dated 6.4.2008 was revoked the petitioner could not have been placed under suspension for the self same charges. Learned counsel for the State urges that it - 2 - appears from the records that the suspension dated 6.4.2008 is specific in context of the subsequent occurrence, unconnected with the order of punishment dated 28.7.2008. It was urged that the order of transfer to Siwan relieving him from suspension was an inadvertent omission or error in absence of necessary information with regard to the order of suspension dated 6.4.2008 as mentioned in the impugned order dated 18.9.2009. This Court on perusal of the order dated 18.9.2009 is satisfied that it explicitly states that the recall of the suspension dated 6.4.2008 was an inadvertent error in absence of necessary information being available. Be that as it may, the question of law for consideration by the Court is whether there can be a retrospective order of suspension. Suspension is not a punishment. The law stands equally well settled that there can be no retrospective suspension which, in effect, shall operate as a punishment. The petitioner does not appear to have questioned the order of his suspension dated 6.4.2008 till its revocation on 11.8.2008. Naturally, he was to be considered under suspension for that period. The period after 11.8.2008 till 18.9.2009 shall be deemed to be a period when he was not under suspension. The - 3 - impugned order dated 18.9.2009 shall be deemed to be a fresh order of suspension with effect from that date in context of the occurrence which led to his suspension. It is trite law that if an order is capable of bifurcation between the good and the bad part of the order, the entire order need not be struck down. This Court therefore holds that the impugned order dated 18.9.2009 is bad only to the extent that it purports to keep the petitioner under suspension from 11.8.2008 to 17.9.2009. Departmental proceedings having been initiated let the same be concluded expeditiously, provided the petitioner himself co-operates. The application is allowed only to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)