IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11558 of 2009 Mahendra Prasad Gupta, son of late Sheo Gobind Prasad, resident of village + Post- Thakurai Parasia, P.S. Nasriganj, District Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai ----------- 02/ 07.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Junior Engineer in the Rural Works Department, Work Section Bachhwara within the Rural Works Division Begusarai and is aggrieved by the orders, bearing Memo. No. 8852 dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 to this application, passed by the Deputy Secretary in the Rural Works Department, whereunder he has continued the suspension of the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 9(1(a) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by extending office order No. 243 dated 8.8.2008, bearing Memo No. 6604 dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-7 to this application until further orders. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having issued impugned order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 till date the authorities have not served memo of charge as was 2 directed to be served in the light of paragraph 4 of the order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 and his continued suspension is violative of sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules, as till date neither the period of suspension has been extended nor any memo of charge has been served on him. 4. It appears petitioner was taken in custody in connection with a criminal case registered for the offence under Sections 406, 409 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code with effect from 16.3.2008 and was released from jail custody under orders dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-5, but actually released from jail custody on 28.5.2008 in terms of the order dated 23.5.2008, Annexure-5, whereafter he submitted his joining on 28.5.2008, but ignoring his letter by which he submitted his joining, the Deputy Secretary of the Department placed him under suspension under order, bearing Memo. No. 6604 dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-7 referred to in the impugned order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 with reference to the provisions contained in Rule 9(2)(a) read with Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules with effect from 16.3.2008, the date on which he was taken in custody. Later, when the authorities realized their mistake that the order dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-7 is contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-rules (2) and (3)(i) of Rule 9 of the Rules, they retraced their steps and accepted the joining submitted by the petitioner on 28.5.2008 under the impugned order and then proceeded to continue the suspension already 3 made under order, bearing Memo. No. 6604 dated 8.8.2008, Annexure-7 with further stipulation that the petitioner shall be served with fresh memo of charge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the impugned order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8, submitted that the said order has been issued with reference to the provisions contained in Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules as having being released from custody, there cannot be any deemed suspension in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules, but the authorities having not served the memo of charge within the time indicated in Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules nor having extended the period of suspension, the order of suspension dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 has become violative of sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 6. Let the petitioner raise the aforesaid submission before the Departmental Principal Secretary, who should consider the same and pass speaking order dealing with the aforesaid submission. If the learned Principal Secretary is of the opinion that the continued suspension of the petitioner is violative of sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules for the failure to serve the memo of charge within the time indicated therein, then he shall revoke the suspension of the petitioner by cancelling order dated 3.11.2008, Annexure-8 and if he does not agree with the submission of the petitioner then he shall pass reasoned order indicating the reasons as to why order dated 3.11.2008, 4 Annexure-8 be not recalled for failure to serve the memo of charge within the time indicated in sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)