IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16071 of 2010 GAYANAND YADAV . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 05.10.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended on 19.1.2009 on certain allegations for having failed to comply the direction for transfer of deposits from PACS to a nationalized bank. Charges were framed and departmental proceedings initiated. An enquiry report was submitted on 5.1.2010. He was exonerated on one charge and indicted on the other. A minor punishment was proposed. While the matter was pending, the Government opined that the Department did not place sufficient evidence by way of documents before the Enquiry Officer and therefore another enquiry was required. CWJC No. 11675 of 2010 was then preferred questioning continued suspension in the aforesaid background. This Court without expressing any opinion on the further enquiry held as follows:- “However, from the recitals contained in the same very order, this Court on facts and circumstances is satisfied that if there was a deficiency in the enquiry cause was attributable to the respondents alone. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in seeking to penalize the petitioner by an advantage to continue the suspension of the petitioner. This Court is therefore satisfied that there is no justification on the records as they stand before this Court placed by the petitioner for his suspension to be continued further”. Since the matter was being disposed off without a counter affidavit, this Court directed the respondents to 2 consider his representation for revocation in light of the discussions contained in the order of the Court. Fresh orders have been passed on 7.9.2010 and which is presently assailed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons spelt out in the order dated 7.9.2010 are nothing more than what this Court considered and rejected in CWJC No. 11765 of 2010 holding that continued suspension in the said background did not appear justified. Counsel for the State submits from Rule 9(6)(b) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules 2005 that respondents were competent to continue him under suspension. On a bare reading the aforesaid provision, the Court is satisfied that it has no application in the facts of the case. The provisions deals with a situation where a departmental proceeding is pending, the delinquent is under suspension and another disciplinary proceeding has commenced against the delinquent during continuation of the suspension. Such is not the case presently. No fresh departmental proceeding has been started against the petitioner on fresh charges. Opining deficiency by the Department in assisting the Enquiry Officer properly further proceeding have been ordered on the same charges and not on any fresh charges. Rule 9(6) (b) therefore has no application. This Court unhesitatingly holds that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order dated 7.9.2010 to justify continued suspension are reasons already considered and 3 rejected by this Court in CWJC No. 11675 of 2010. To that extent the order dated 7.9.2010 is clearly unsustainable in law. The standards by which the officials of the State Government profess to act are the same standards by which the Court shall test their actions and hold them to be bound by. If the departmental proceedings were not conducted in accordance with law and the deficiency lay, in the opinion of the State officials, with certain other officials of the State Government, leading to an advantage to the petitioner, it is for the State officials to first set their own house in order. If those who faulted in presenting the department’s case against the petitioner have been chargesheeted and departmental proceedings have been initiated against them the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Conversely if the respondents have acted in a manner to shield such officials there can be no justification for continuance of the order dated 7.9.2010. Let the Chief Secretary of the State pass an appropriate order in that light within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)