IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19200 of 2011 1. Bidyarthi Shyamdeo Prasad Singh, Son of Late Ganga Mahto, Resident of Village + P.O. Telhara, P.S. Telhara, District – Nalanda………….petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Patna, Bihar 6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Work Division, Hilsa in the District Of Nalanda 7. Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Works Department, Works Sub-Division, Ekangsarai, in the District of Nalanda 8. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda…………………Respondents ----------- 2. 04-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of suspension vide letter No. 871 dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure-1) to the writ petition. The petitioner has been suspended vide letter No. 871 dated 27.07.2011 Annexure-1 to the writ petition in contemplation of departmental proceeding. He has been put under suspension in exercise of power conferred under the Bihar Government Servant (Classification and Control Appeal) Rules 2005 (herein after mentioned as ‘Rule’). The relevant portion of Rule are as follows:- Rule-9 …… (7) Charge-sheet must be framed within three months from the date of issue of suspension order failing 2 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 alongwith reasons to be recorded in writing for the delay in framing of charge-sheet for a further period of four months; Provided that after the expiry of extended period of four months the suspension order shall stand revoked if the charge-sheet is not framed.” According to the petitioner under sub-clause (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules the authority was required to serve the charge- sheet within three months from the date of the order of suspension but the power has conferred on the authority concerned that they can extend the period of suspension for further period of four months subject to the condition that the authority will have to pass a separate order before the expiry of three months assigning the reason. If the appropriate authority does not pass the order as aforesaid, there is command of legislature, the Authority will pass order revoking the order of suspension. The proviso of the rule further provides that if no charge sheet is served within the extended period of four months thereafter, by operation of law, automatically the order of suspension comes to an end. In this case, the petitioner has been suspended on 27.7.2011 and accordingly 90 days comes to an end on 3 26.10.2011. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit stating the fact that till date the authority has not served the charge-sheet nor any order has been passed assigning the reason extending the period of suspension. As this Court does not know the state of facts as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel for petitioner is support of his submission has relied on the judgement of Full Bench of the Supreme Court in 2009 (4) P.L.J.R. 272 the State of Bihar Vs. Gyan Kumar Ram (Full Bench) and also relied upon on the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 12497/2010 ( D. Prasad Vs. State of Bihar) This Court in Full Bench has decided the issue as raised herein before in following paras:- (8) The basis question is, whether the order of suspension automatically comes to an end on the expiry of three months if charge-sheet is not framed within the said period of three months and no order of extension is passed for reasons to be recorded in writing. (9) It is true that Rule 9(7) of the Rules does not specifically state, unlike provision to Rule 9(7), that on failure to frame the charge-sheet within three months, the order of suspension is deemed to be revoked or ‘shall stand revoked’. The rule provides in no uncertain terms that ‘charge-sheet must be framed 4 within three months’. The consequence of failure to do so is envisaged by providing ‘…….failing which on expiry of three months the suspension order shall be revoked’. This does not leave any discretion with the authority not to revoke the suspension. The only alternative left with the authority if he intends to extend the order of suspension is to pass an order extending such suspension. However, even this discretion is controlled by the requirement that he is required to pass orders ‘renewing the suspension alongwith reasons to be recorded in writing’. It is further contemplated that the reasons should be ‘for the delay in framing of charge-sheet’ and not for any other reason such as seriousness of the allegation, etc.’. (17) The law is well settled that no provision of any statutory rule should be read in isolation and effort should be made to harmonise all the provisions. It is to be noticed that Rule 9 (7) empowers the competent authority to pass an order renewing the suspension with the reasons to be recorded in writing for the delay in framing charge-sheet, if charge-sheet is not framed within three months and no order renewing the suspension is passed, at that stage, the employee has 5 the right to seek for revocation of the order of suspension and in such an event, the order of suspension is bound to be revoked once the employee evinces his intention to resume duty by making appropriate application before the concerned authority or even in a court of law. If by the time the employee makes an application for reinstatement on account of the non-compliance with Rule 9(7), the authority concerned will have no further discretion in the matter and is bound to reinstate him in service. If, on the other hand, before the employee evinces clear intention to be reinstated, the competent authority issues any order renewing the order of suspension for reasons to be recorded in writing, the cloud regarding the vulnerability of the suspension is cleared and thereafter there will not be any occasion for the suspended employee to claim that he must be reinstated in service notwithstanding the fact that in the meantime the competent authority has passed an appropriate order renewing the suspension. What is to be noticed is that Rule 9(7) does not lay down in clear terms that the order extending suspension cannot be passed even after there has been some gap. Similarly, if, before the employee exercising his right of claim for 6 reinstatement, charge-sheet is framed, the vulnerability of the suspension order on account of the fact that charge-sheet is not framed within the three months period comes to an end.”. Having considered contentions of parties this application is disposed with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to examine the issue of revocation of suspension of the petitioner under the Bihar Government Servant (CCA) Rules 2005 considering following facts:- If the charge-sheet is not framed within three months and no order revoking the suspension is passed and if the petitioner has filed an application making a prayer for revocation of suspension order, the Authority would pass the order of reinstatement but before filing of such application making prayer of revocation suspension and his reinstatement if the order is passed extending the period of suspension, in that circumstance the petitioner would loose his right of revocation of his suspension as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court as mentioned above. Accordingly, the authority is directed to complete the exercise of consideration of his case within two months form the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. In view of this position, the writ petition is disposed of. Mkc/ (Shivaji Pandey, J.)