IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16059 of 2009 1. SHIVCHANDRA CHOUDHARY S/O LATE RAMLAKHAN CHOUDHARY, R/O MOH- KOLHUAA PAIGEMBERPUR BAIRIA, P.S- AHIYAPUR, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMINISTRATION) DARBHANGA DARBHANGA, DISTT- DARBHANGA 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MADHUBANI DISTT- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 4.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his continued suspension since 31.1.2007. He is stated to have submitted his reply to the authorities in the departmental proceeding on 6.10.2008 and alleges that the same yet remains pending for disposal. The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in the Police. It appears that the daughter had a love affair with a young man much to the dislike of the petitioner. A complaint by his daughter led to a criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings against him. Learned counsel for the State opposing the application submits that the conduct of the petitioner was highly unbecoming of a Police Officer. The departmental proceedings are on the verge of conclusion. That the 2 petitioner has a remedy of appeal against the order of suspension under the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 without availing which he has rushed to this Court. The departmental proceedings against the petitioner are not the subject matter of consideration by this Court. The Court is only concerned with the issue of his prolonged suspension. It is apparent that the charges relate to some allegations made by his own daughter and her subsequent statement in the criminal prosecution under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. of an alleged compromise. It is, therefore, manifest that his suspension is related to an act completely unconnected with the discharge of his official duties. A Bench decision of this Court in 2000(1) PLJR 227 Paragraph-4 holds as follows:- “4. There appears to be no justification for passing an order of suspension merely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in some criminal case wholly unconnected with the performance of his duties. In fact, this case is also not a case of serious nature and is, perhaps, on account of personal disputes arising out of partition of properties between the members of the family. This Court finds no justification to permit the continued suspension of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of suspension dated 31.1.2007 is, accordingly, set aside. The respondents are now expected to conclude the 3 departmental proceedings expeditiously provided the petitioner himself co-operates within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If circumstances warrant, the respondents may also proceed ex parte buy only after recording detailed reasons of the facts and circumstances of non-cooperation of the petitioner despite adequate opportunity and only whereafter can ex parte orders be passed. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)