IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16165 of 2011 Ramawtar Ram, aged about 34 years, son of Sri Nathu Ram, resident of Maldi, Police Station Shikarpur, District- West Champaran. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Primary, Secondary Education Department, Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran. 3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Narkatiaganj, Block No.1. 4. The Principal, Rajyakrit Prathamik Vidayalay, Chintamanpur. 5. The Mukhiya, Bhasurari Gram Panchayat, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rupak Kumar, Advocate. For the State. Mr. Nagendra Sharma, AC to GP-8. ----------- 2 20.09.2011 Heard both the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents are refusing to accept his joining on the post of Panchayat Teacher in Rajyakrit Prathamik Vidayalay, Chintamanpur, Narkatiaganj where he had been in service for 11 months hitherto. It appears that the petitioner had been made accused in Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 15 of 2010 but in due course he was granted bail by order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure-8). Thereafter, he attempted to submit his joining on 13.06.2011 which was not accepted by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the State appears and submits that by reason of the petitioner’s having been remanded to custody, he must be deemed to have been suspended and as such in the absence of any order revoking his suspension, the petitioner is rightly not been allowed to join his service. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a 2 recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in (2011) 2 PLJR 1021 (Anand Swarup Vs. The State of Bihar) wherein the scope of Rule-9 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been discussed and explained. It has been made clear that the effect of a person’s being taken into custody is that he is deemed to be suspended in terms of Rule 9 (2)(a) but at the same time his suspension is also deemed to come to an end automatically upon his being released from custody, neither of which requires any formal order to be passed. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been released on bail by order dated 23.05.2011 and has submitted his joining on 13.06.2011. In this view of the matter, his suspension must be deemed to have to come to an end upon his release on bail on 23.05.2011 and there is no reason why the respondents should not accept his joining, which was tendered on 13.06.2011. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to accept the joining of the petitioner with effect from 13.06.2011 and to allow him to resume his duties forthwith. Md. Ibrarul ( Vikash Jain, J.)