IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11665 of 2009 DR.SURESH PRASAD, Son of Late Baldeo Prasad, permanent resident of Mohalla- Mithapur, B-Area near Lakshmi Niwas, Thana- Jakkanpur, District- Patna :------ Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Principal Secretary-Cum-Commissioner, Department of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna. 3. Under Special Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Department of Forest and Environment, Old Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna :----------Respondents. ----------- 2. 08.09.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Divisional Forest Officer. He became accused in a criminal case and was taken in custody and while he remained in custody he was placed under suspension in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) under notification of the Government bearing Memo No. 655 dated 07.03.2007, Annexure-1 with effect from the date of his custody i.e. 30.12.2006. While the petitioner remained in judicial custody charge- sheet in the criminal case was submitted bearing no. 33/06 dated 26.02.2007 and after submission of the charge-sheet the authorities issued fresh notification bearing Memo No. 1134 dated 14.04.2007, Annexure-2 with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (1) (c) of Rule 9 of the Rules which empowers the disciplinary authority to place the delinquent under suspension during the pendency of the criminal case for investigation, enquiry or trial. Petitioner was subsequently released on bail and he submitted his joining on 21st January, 2008 whereafter he has been served with the memo of charge - 2 - for conducting the departmental proceeding against him on 13.05.2008 under Annexure-4. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even after passage of more than one year there has been hardly any progress in the departmental proceeding and the notification placing him under suspension dated 14.04.2007, Annexure-2 be quashed for failure of the departmental authorities to serve the memo of charge within seven months of the service of the suspension order dated 14.04.2007 which was served on the petitioner while he remained in jail custody. In this connection reliance has been placed on the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 4. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reason that the suspension of the petitioner is in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 9 (1)(c) of the Rules which empowers the disciplinary authority to place the delinquent under suspension until the criminal case lodged against him remains under investigation, enquiry or trial. After submission of the charge-sheet against the petitioner bearing no. 33/06 dated 26.02.2007 the criminal case must have remained under enquiry or trial. In the circumstances, for failure of the authorities to serve the memo of charge in the departmental proceeding within seven months, as is required under Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules has no application to the present case and the prayer made in this writ petition to quash the suspension order dated 14.04.2007, Annexure-2 is wholly misconceived which is rejected. While dismissing the writ application, - 3 - I direct the disciplinary authority to ensure conduction of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner with service of memo of charge dated 13.05.2008, Annexure-4, as early as possible in any case within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the enquiry Officer. 5. No sooner the aforesaid direction was issued learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the six documents relied upon in the charge-sheet have not yet been served on him. Let the Enquiry Officer ensure service of the six documents referred to in the charge- sheet on the petitioner so that he may make out his defence in the departmental proceeding before hand. It is further submitted that in case the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the witnesses referred to in the charge-sheet is used by the Enquiry Officer then the petitioner should be given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses by asking them to appear before the Enquiry Officer. A.F.R. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J. )