IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1015 of 2010 1. DR. DHIRENDRA KUMAR DAS 'ARVIND' S/O SRI KAMESHWAR LAL DAS AT PRESENT- RESIDING AT BIRAULI, P.S. PUSA, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DIRECTOR-CUM-SECRETARY RURAL INSTITUTE OF BIRAULI COMMITTEE, P.S. PUSA, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 6. HARI NARAYAN SINGH S/O NOT KNOWN AT PRESENT- EDUCATION MINISTER (HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. PROF. SHEONATH MANDAR S/O LATE MAKSUDAN MANDAR A/P WORKING AT BALIRAM BHAGAT COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR ----------- 3/ 06/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The only issue for consideration in this case is the correctness of the order of suspension dated 30.11.2009 when the counter affidavit of respondent No.5 explicitly states in paragraph No.6 that only on 17.6.2010 the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar has resolved to conduct a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Rural Institute of Birauli, Samastipur is affiliated to the Lalit Narayan Mithila University and has its own identity and autonomy being directly controlled by the Higher Education Department of the Government of Bihar. The petitioner has been appointed by the Department of Higher 2 Education, Government of Bihar on the post of Lecturer in the department of English. The service conditions of the employees of the Institute is treated and categorized as Bihar Education Service Class-2 and the pay-scale and other service conditions are the same as applicable to the State Government employees under the aforesaid service. The Institute has framed separate rules regulating the service conditions of its own employees appointed by it and which does not concern the petitioner. The submission therefore is that the petitioner is regulated by the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and in terms of Rule-9(7) thereof, as interpreted by a Full Bench of this Court in paragraph-20, is that if the charges are not framed within three months from the date of suspension and the petitioner represents for revocation or moves the Court after expiry of three months and before charges are framed, the suspension has to be revoked. Learned counsel for the Institute opposing the application submitted that the service rules of the Institute shall apply to the petitioner. There is no such limitation of the present nature. The fallacy in the argument of the Institute lies from Annexure-A to their counter affidavit itself. If the petitioner was an employee of the Institute amenable to its service rules, proceeding 3 against him shall have been the jurisdiction of the Institute alone and there was no need of any orders from the State Government keeping in mind the autonomous status of the Institute. On the contrary, the order of initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner keeping in mind his status as a person appointed by the State Government has been issued by the State Government itself. This Court is satisfied that it requires no more discussion that the petitioner is fully amenable to the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. If there be any doubt in the matter, it stands further concluded by the notification of the Institute dated 28.2.2007 clarifying that the pay scale and service conditions of the petitioner shall be the same as applicable to those in the Bihar Education Service, Class-2. There can be no doubt about the proposition that administrative control over the employee is a part of the service conditions and shall therefore automatically take suspension in its ambit. In view of the admitted position in the counter affidavit with regard to the applicability of Rule-9(7) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 this Court holds that the order of suspension stands revoked by operation of law. The order of suspension is dated 30.11.2009. The resolution to hold departmental proceedings is dated 17.6.2010. More than three months have passed and 4 charges have not been framed. Before framing of charges the petitioner has questioned his continued suspension. In view of the law discussed in paragraph-20 of the Full Bench Decision in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 472 this Court is satisfied that the continued suspension of the petitioner is not sustainable. This Court formally pronounces that the petitioner no more remains under suspension. Annexure- 12 is accordingly quashed. Let the departmental proceedings be concluded expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates in the process. Payment of subsistence allowance is a statutory duty. It requires no other application on behalf of the suspended employee rather the obligation of the respondent/employer. If the petitioner has not been paid his subsistence allowance and stakes a claim for interest upon the dues, let the same be considered in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)