IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7212 of 2009 RAMCHANDRA PASWAN, SON OF LATE LAKHICHAND PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SARSAULA KHURD, P.S. SHEOHAR, DISTRICT – SHEOHAR AT PRESENT POSTED AS BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, JOGIYARA -1 (JALE), P.S. JALE, DISTRICT – DARBHANGA. ………. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR –CUM-DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, JOGIYARA -1 (JALE), DISTRICT – DARBHANGA. 6. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. ………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 06.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. I.A. No. 3375 of 2010 Prayer of the petitioner in the main writ application as well as in the Interlocutory application is for quashing of letter dated 02.4.2009, Memo No. 308, whereby he has been put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. The reason for issuance of suspension order and initiating departmental proceeding is that petitioner had not supplied the required information to the authority and when they tried to contact the petitioner on his mobile phone, it was switched off. Interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner for revocation of the suspension on the ground - 2 - that as per C.C.A. Rule, 2005 the respondents were duty bound to frame charge and furnish it to the petitioner within three months from the date of the issuance of suspension order, but that was neither framed nor supplied to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent-State this allegation has been denied. It is stated that the charge was framed on 17.4.2009 and supplied to the petitioner on 30.4.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the suspension order on many grounds. It is also stated that the mobile number, which is mentioned in the suspension order, shows that it is only of 9 digits, which cannot be a correct mobile number. It is also stated that reference of letter no. 3520 dated 31.5.2009 has been mentioned in the suspension order, considering which the petitioner has been put under suspension. There cannot be any report under consideration dated 24.3.2009 for issuance of suspension order dated 2.4.2009. . Counsel for the State, however, tried to impress stating that these are clerical errors. - 3 - However, objection, which has been raised by the petitioner, has got some substance for the reason that a suspension order should not have been issued in such a hurry that it is full of clerical errors. However, since the departmental proceeding has already been initiated, I do not feel inclined to quash the suspension order. The petitioner may participate in the departmental proceeding. The respondents are also directed to expedite the departmental proceeding and try to conclude it, preferably within six months. In case the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the stipulated time, despite full co- operation of the petitioner, the order of suspension will be removed automatically on completion of six months. This application is disposed of. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)