IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11580 of 2009 CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH @ MOHAN, SON OF LATE VIDYA NAND SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MACHARGANWAN BAJAR, POLICE STATION-YOGAPATTI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN.. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, West Champaran. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Bettiah, West Champaran. 5. The Block Development Officer, Yogapptti, West Champaran. 6. Child Development Project Officer, Yogapatti, West Chamaran. 7. The District Programme Officer, Bettiah, District-West Champaran. 8. Mukhiya, Macharganwan Panchayat, Block Yogapatti, District-West Champaran. 9. Panchayat Sewak, Macharganwan Panchayat, Block Yogapatti, District-West Champaran. ………….. ………. Respondents. ----------- 2. 06.11.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Petitioner is posted as Assistant Teacher Yogapatti, West Champaran, Bettiah. He has been put under suspension under the orders of District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran, Bettiah as contained in Memo No. 1388 dated 13.07.2009. The suspension order has been issued by the District Superintendent of Education on the direction of District Magistrate, West Champaran as contained in Memo No. 408 dated 04.07.2009 for the reason that being the assistant teacher unauthorizedly he participated in the general body meeting conducted by the Panchayat for selection of Anganwadi Sewika. By the impugned order, petitioner’s head 2 office has been decided and except the subsistence allowed, he has been directed not to receive his salary or allowances. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for quashing the impugned suspension order and also the direction issued by the District Magistrate, contained in Memo No. 408 dated 04.07.2009 on the grounds that the suspension order cannot continue any more against the petitioner in terms of rule 9(7) of C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Under rule 9(i) of C.C.A. Rules, 2005, a competent authority is authorized to place a Govt. servant under suspension – ( a ) in contemplation of a departmental proceeding; (b) if the government servant has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest to the security of the state in the opinion of the authorities, or ( c) a case is under investigation, inquiry or trial against the government servant and the competent authority is of the opinion that suspension of the government servant in the given circumstance is expedient in the public interest. In case the suspension order has been issued in contemplation of the departmental proceeding, then sub rule 7 of Rule 9 has relevance. Sub-rule 7 provides that in case of suspension, in contemplation of the departmental proceeding, charge must be framed within three months from the date of 3 issue of suspension order failing which, on expiry of three months, the suspension order shall be revoked unless the authority, which issued the suspension order, passes the order renewing the suspension along with the reasons recorded in writing for the delay in framing of the charge for a further period of four months, provided that if the expiry of extended period of four months, the suspension order shall stand revoked, if the charge is not framed. In the present case, the suspension order was issued on 13.07.2009 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding but as submitted by petitioner’s counsel, till date, no charge has been framed. The competent authority on expiry of three months’ period, has not extended the suspension period for further four months as provided under rule 9(7) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of rule 9(7) of C.C.A. Rules, 2005, keeping the petitioner under suspension, is completely illegal and arbitrary and that must be quashed. Considering the relevant rules and the admitted facts that no charge has been framed till now and period for suspension has also not been extended as provided under the rules, the continuation of suspension order cannot be allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 13.07.2009 as contained in Memo No. 1388 is quashed. However, the 4 departmental proceeding which is to be initiated against the petitioner, that will continue and petitioner may be proceeded with the charges framed against him by the competent authority. Akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J.)