IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12020 of 2009 SMT.PRIYADARSHIKA VANITA, W/o- Sri Rajkumar Singh, resident of S.K. 54, K. Sector, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, District- Patna :--- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-13. 4. Programme Officer, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, jShastri Nagar, Patna -13. 5. The State Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna-13 through its Project Director. 6. The Administrative Officer, Bihar Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna- 13. 7. Chief Account Officer, State Education Project Council, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna -13:--Respondents. ----------- 2. 14.09.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit for correcting the contents of paragraph-1 of the writ petition, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. Petitioner who at the relevant time served as Accounts Officer in the Bihar Education Project Council is aggrieved by the charge-sheet/suspension-order bearing Memo No. 1264 dated 15.04.2006, Annexure-1. It is submitted on her behalf that after issue of memo of charge petitioner was permitted to submit her explanation in response whereto she under letter dated 15.07.2006 requested the Enquiry Officer to furnish the copy of the memo of charge/suspension order and the authorities under letter dated 04.08.2006, Annexure-2 directed her to receive the same on 12.08.2006 at 3.P.M. Having received the memo of charge/suspension order on 12.08.2006 under letter dated 12.08.2006, Annexure-3 petitioner requested further 15 days’ time to file her explanation to the memo of charge. Under letter - 2 - dated 24.08.2006, Annexure-4 she requested the authorities to furnish her copies of the documents on the basis of which she desired to submit her written defence as according to her perusal of the charge- sheet does not indicate any document which has been relied by the authorities in support of the charge. For such purpose she also wrote several other letters which is dated 27.10.2006, 07.11.2006, 13.11.2006 and 15.11.2006, Annexures- 6, 7, 8 and 8A to this application. According to the petitioner the documents asked for were never made available and she could not file her written explanation to the memo of charge. Petitioner again requested the State Project Director to reconsider her suspension as even after passage of more than two years neither the proceeding was taken to its logical end nor her suspension has been revoked. In this connection she has also written letters dated 28.07.2008, 5.9.2008 and 6.9.2008. Even in response to the aforesaid letters neither the Enquiry officer nor the disciplinary authority took any decision in the matter but under Letter No. 1685 dated 7th April, 2009, Annexure-11 fixed 16.4.2009 at 11 A.M. for appearance of the petitioner for reconsidering the suspension order. In response whereto petitioner again appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 25.5.2009 and filed her written explanation before the Enquiry Officer on 25.5.2009 which is evident from (Annexure- 12). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as directed petitioner is always available and appearing before the Enquiry Officer but neither her suspension is being revoked nor her explanation dated 25.05.2009 is being considered. - 3 - 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar Education Project Council, I direct the Project Director to consider the request of the petitioner to revoke her suspension as she is under suspension for more than three years and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event the Project Director decides to revoke the suspension the proceeding initiated against her should continue after she is made available the photo copy of the documents which she sought under representation dated 24.8.2006, Annexure-4. In case those documents are bulky then the petitioner be allowed inspection of those documents fixing a date for inspection. In case the Project Director chooses not to take any decision in the light of this order then the suspension order of the petitioner shall stand revoked no sooner the time fixed in this order is over. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)