IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17057 of 2008 DR.LALAN KUMAR CHOUDHARY @ DR.LALN CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 18.03.2009 The petitioner was taken into custody on 31.10.2006 when Vigilance case No. 70 of 2006 corresponding to Special Case No.35 of 2006 for alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were registered against him. He was released from custody on 5.1.2007. He gave his joining on 8.1.2007. The grievance is that instead of accepting his joining on 8.1.2007, he was handed over fresh order of suspension on that day. The order of suspension was bad inasmuch as it sought to suspend him retrospectively from 31.10.2006. The second ground urged is that till date charges have not been finalized and the Respondents have themselves raised the issue that the charges require further consideration. . Under Rule 9(2) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) the moment a Government servant is taken into custody and remains so for a period more than 48 hours, he is deemed to be suspended by operation of law. No formal order in that regard is required. This deemed suspension comes to an end when he is released from custody. Fresh suspension orders are required under Rule 9(3) of the Rules. If the fresh order of suspension dated 8.1.2007 includes within it this period of 2 custody, when suspension operates by law, this Court finds it difficult to hold that there has been any retrospective suspension of the petitioner. If the petitioner gave his joining on 8.1.2007 and the Respondents simultaneously issued his order of suspension on that day, this Court finds no infirmity with the same. Under Rule 9(7) of the Rules, charges are to be framed within a period of three months from the date of suspension. That this is not mandatory is apparent from the latter part of the provision which states that this period of three months can be extended by another period of four months. In the present case, charges have been framed against the petitioner on 18.6.2007 before the expiry of the period of seven months. That supplementary charges may have been framed or a discussion may have been arisen with regard to the charges are of no consequence. Rule 9(7) of the Rules shall have full play if charges have already been framed. What will be the effect of the charges in the event that they are incomplete or defective etc. and to whose benefit it may inure are matters to be considered in the departmental proceedings itself. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the order of suspension. Let the departmental proceedings be concluded within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The time period shall 3 apply, provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The disciplinary authority shall be at liberty to proceed ex parte also in the event of non-cooperation by the petitioner in completion of the proceedings within the time fixed but only after recording their satisfaction based on reasons to that effect in the order sheet of the proceedings. If the departmental proceedings are not concluded within a period prescribed above, the issue of suspension may remain open for consideration by the respondents. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)