IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3868 of 2008 SACHCHIDANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05/ 24.6.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Panchayat Sewak and is aggrieved by the order, bearing Memo. No. 137 dated 24.9.2007, Annexure-1passed by the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura, whereunder he has been placed under suspension as he was taken in custody in connection with a criminal case with effect from 5.4.2007, but the said order has been passed on 24.9.2007 with reference to Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) which provides for suspension while the service holders remain under custody after the petitioner was released from jail custody on 14.8.2007 and submitted his joining on 17.8.2007. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order has been passed with reference to Rule 99 of the Code, which has no application to the facts of this case as on the date of the order, petitioner was not in jail custody. 4. True it is that Rule 99 of the Code does not take into account the fact situation involved in the case, but from perusal of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of the departmental proceeding with instruction to the Enquiry Officer to conclude the departmental proceeding within two months, but it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that during the two months time, which was fixed for concluding the proceeding, charges were also not served on him, as such the suspension order be quashed for the failure to 2 serve the charge sheet and conclude the proceedings within the time fixed in the suspension order. 5. Counsel for the State opposed the prayer by pointing out that petitioner never joined his headquarters, which was fixed during the period of suspension as such, charge sheet could not be served on him within the said two months which has now been served on 8.4.2008. 6. If the petitioner failed to join the Headquarter and appear before the Enquiry Officer still it was open for the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the enquiry proceeding ex parte, but in no case the time limit fixed in the suspension order to conclude the enquiry proceeding should have been allowed to lapse. 7. By now the petitioner has remained under suspension for about nine months, in the circumstances, I quash the suspension order dated 24.9.2007, Annexure-1 and direct the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 7.7.2008 with a certified copy of this order and thereafter the Enquiry Officer should proceed with the enquiry proceeding in accordance with law after ensuring that the copy of the evidence in support of the charge is given to the petitioner and conclude the same as early as possible, in any case within six months from the date of receipt of the written defence from the petitioner, which written defence must be filed by the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the evidence in support of the charge. 8. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)