IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7838 of 2010 1. RAM JEEVAN PRASAD S/O LATE BHOTI GOPE R/O MOHALLA- CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR YOGIPUR, P.S. PATRAKAR NAGAR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PARIWAHAN BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, NAWADA 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, MOTIHARI ----------- 3. 20.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 13.5.2009 under Rule 9 (2)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 with effect from his date of custody i.e., 18.12.2008. He was released from custody on 20.01.2009 and submitted his joining on 22.1.2009. It was accepted. He was suspended afresh on 8.9.2009 with effect from 22.1.2009 under Rule 9(1)(c) and Rule 9(3)(ii) of the CCA Rules. The first submission that there can be no suspension with retrospective effect merits consideration and is upheld by the Court. Counsel for the State has not been able to satisfy the Court of the justification in law for a retrospective order of suspension. Equally it stands well considered that if an order is passed on good grounds and bad grounds and the two are severable, the Court shall severe the bad part of the 2 order and uphold the good part of the order if it is otherwise justified in law. In (1966) 2 SCR 204, (R. Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras) it was held at Paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows:- 3. Counsel for the appellant next contended that the order of dismissal dated October 17, 1950 having been passed with retrospective effect is illegal and inoperative. Counsel for the respondent submitted (1) the order of dismissal with retrospective effect as from the date of the suspension is valid in its entirety, and (2) in any event, the order is valid and effective as from October 17, 1950. The High Court accepted the first contention, and declined to express any opinion on the second contention. In our opinion, the second contention of the respondent is sound, and in this view of the matter, we decline to express any opinion on the first contention. Counsel for the appellant conceded that if the respondent’s second contention is accepted, the appeal must fail. 4. The order dated October 17, 1950 directed that the appellant be dismissed from service with effect from the date of his suspension, that is to say, from May 20, 1949. In substance, this order directed that (1) the appellant be dismissed, and (2) the dismissal do operate retrospectively as from May 20, 1949. The two parts of this composite order are separable. The first part of the order operates as a dismissal of the appellant as from October 17, 1950. The invalidity of the second part of the order, assuming this part to be invalid, does not affect the first part of the order. The order of dismissal as from October 17, 1950 is valid and effective. The appellant has been lawfully dismissed, and he is not entitled to claim that he is still in service Suspension is not a punishment. A retrospective order of suspension operates as a punishment. The Court therefore holds that there can be no retrospective suspension in law. The suspension is 3 effective from 8.9.2009. It shall not take effect from 22.1.2009. He is entitled to consequential benefits from the date of joining i.e., 22.1.2009 till the fresh order of suspension, in accordance with law. The second submission of the petitioner that charge has not been framed within the maximum period indicated under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 merits no consideration in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench of this Court in 2009(4) PLJR 272. The Court therefore rejects that argument. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet is stated to be served on the petitioner. Let the departmental proceeding be expedited and concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the enquiry officer, provided the petitioner himself co- operates. The writ application stands allowed but only to the extent indicated. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)