IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9780 of 2010 1. KAMLA KANT THAKUR S/O SRI PANCHANAND THAKUR R/O VILL.- TOPKHANA BAZAR, KATHGHAR, P.S.- KOTWALI MUNGER, DISTT.- MUNGER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, MUNGER 3. THE AREA EDUCATION OFFICER, MUNGER 4. THE HEAD-MASTER, BALAK MIDDLE SCHOOL, CHOTTI KALA BARI, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTT.- MUNGER ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv. Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv. For the State : G.P.-3. ----------- 02 13.07.2010 The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. It appears that in a criminal case, which was instituted in the year 2004, the petitioner was taken into custody and remanded on 01.02.2007. He was released from custody on 02.05.2007 on bail being granted by this Court. While in custody, authorities being informed, petitioner was suspended by the District Superintendent of Education, Munger vide his order dated 20.04.2007 (Annexure-1). The suspension order clearly states that he has been put under suspension by reason of his imprisonment in a criminal case. Consequent to his release on 02.05.2007, petitioner states that he was seriously ill and ultimately gave his joining, which was accepted on 12.12.2008. It is specifically stated that though his joining has been accepted his suspension has not been revoked. It is further specifically stated that no departmental proceedings have been initiated and/or pending in this regard nor any chargesheet has been submitted in this regard, - 2 - even though in the order of suspension dated 20.04.2007, there is a mention that charge would be framed in the matter. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner with reference to Rule 9(3)(i)&(ii) of the Bihar Government Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 submits that the moment petitioner was released from custody and his joining was accepted, the suspension which was passed in terms of Rule 9(2)(a) would automatically come to an end in view of Rule 9(3)(i), unless a fresh proceeding is started in terms of Rule 9(3)(ii), which in fact, has not been done. He, thus, submits that upon petitioner joining and joining being accepted after release from custody, he cannot be continued under suspension. The urgency of this matter is that the petitioner is to superannuate on 20.07.2010. Having heard the parties and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. In my view, for proper appreciation of Rule 9(2) and Rule 9(3), the relevant parts are quoted hereunder:- “9.Order of suspension:- (1)……. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority with effect from the following date:- (a) from the date of his or her detention, if he or she is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours;……… - 3 - (3)(i) After the custody period under sub-rule (2), the period of deemed suspension shall be deemed to end when the Government servant give his joining and the joining shall be accepted. (ii) If a decision is taken to suspend the Government servant again under sub-rule (1)(a), or (b) or (c), then such action may be taken only after acceptance of joining and by issuing a separate order……..” The Rules, in my view, are clear and unambiguous unless suspension is ordered after release and accepting joining in terms of sub-rule (ii) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 9. The suspension ordered because of detention would automatically lapse. In the present case, though joining was accepted after petitioner’s release from custody, no fresh order of suspension was passed, much less, in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, as contemplated under sub-rule(ii) of sub rule(3) of Rule 9. That being so, by operation of law, the suspension stood revoked with effect from 12.12.2008 when his joining was accepted. That being so, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his full remunerations after that day. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is not under suspension and would be entitled to full remuneration, as noted above. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)