IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10088 of 2008 DR.RAM YASH RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. S.R. Shavan(JC to AAG-XI), Advocate. ----------- 2. 14.7.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Civil Surgeon, Muzaffarpur as also Principal, Regional Training Centre, Sheikhpura, Patna. He was taken in custody on 19.8.2006 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003 dated 19.12.2003 and 28 of 2006 dated 12.5.2006 and as he was taken in custody in the said two cases, he was placed under suspension under notification of the Government bearing Memo No. 1116(09) dated 13.10.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 to this application. It is submitted on his behalf that on 9.11.2006, he was released on bail and after being released he submitted his joining before the Secretary of the Department under his letter dated 10.11.2006 as contained in Annexure-2 to this application. Even after submission of joining by the petitioner on 10.11.2006, the suspension order dated 13.10.2006, Annexure-1 has not been recalled, rather petitioner is continued under suspension ignoring the provisions contained in Sub-Rule 3(ii) of Rule-9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Later the Government initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner as is evident from Resolution of the Government dated 13.2.2008. Perusal of the said Resolution also does not indicate that any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner along with the said Resolution. 3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, states that he has been served with an Anubandh duly signed by the Deputy Secretary of the - 2 - Department dated 13.10.2006, Annexure-4 series, whereunder it is said that the allegations set out in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 22 of 2003 and 28 of 2006 dated 19.12.2003 and 12.5.2006 are/were found true during investigation and those are the charges to be gone into even in the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and in support of those charges, First Information Report of the two cases have been appended with the Anubandh. 4. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the continued suspension of the petitioner is violative of the provisions of Sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule-9 of the Rules as till date the authorities have neither cancelled the earlier suspension order dated 13.10.2006 nor have passed any subsequent order placing the petitioner under suspension during the continuation of the departmental proceeding/criminal case. 5. Aforesaid being the position, I set aside the earlier notification placing the petitioner under suspension dated 13.10.2006, Annexure-1, as the same has already lived its purpose and has become redundant in view of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (3)(ii) of Rule-9 of the Rules, which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: “(ii) If a decision is taken to suspend the Government servant again under sub-rule (1)(a), or (b) or (c), then such action may be taken only after acceptance of joining and by issuing a separate order”. As no subsequent suspension order has been issued, the authorities are directed to accept the joining of the petitioner and are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)