IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16813 of 2011 Shailendra Kumar Thakur Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 5. 19.12.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. No counter affidavit has been filed but in pursuance of the direction of the Court the original records of the departmental proceedings have been produced. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.4.2011 on allegations of negligence, shirking from work, disobeying orders and not taking interest in work, in contemplation of departmental proceeding. On 25.8.2011 he protested that more than three months had passed but no charge had been framed under Rule 9 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005 requesting for revocation of suspension. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Full bench decision reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 272 (State of Bihar & ors v. Gyan Kumar Ram) holding at para 20 that if charges were not framed within three months and the delinquent protests before framing of charge even beyond three months, he gets a right to be reinstated. The original records of the departmental proceeding reveal that charges have been framed on 20.9.2011 beyond three months from the date of suspension and after the protest of the petitioner for revocation of suspension made on 25.8.2011. The present order of suspension dated 16.4.2011 is therefore no more sustainable in view of the Full Bench judgment. It is accordingly set aside. The departmental proceeding shall continue. In what manner the period of suspension has to be treated is now to be decided in the departmental proceeding itself. Any claim for subsistence allowance for the period when suspension may have continued has to be decided by the authorities on a representation by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 10 of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)