IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16815 of 2008 DHARMENDRA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3/ 13/01/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.7.2008. It is fairly acknowledged that charge- sheet has been served upon him after initiation of departmental proceedings and a conducting officer has also been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that Rule-9 (7) of the Bihar Government Servants (C.C.A.) Rules of 2005 mandates that charge- sheet must be served upon the delinquent within three months from the date of suspension failing which the suspension shall lapse or be evoked. Rule-9(7) reads as follows:- Rule 9(7): “Charge-sheet must be framed within three months from the date of issue of suspension order failing which on expiry of three months, the suspension order shall be revoked unless the authority, which issued the suspension order, passes the order renewing the suspension alongwith reasons to be recorded in writing for the delay in framing of charge-sheet for a further period of four months; Provided that after the expiry of extended period of four months the suspension order shall stand revoked if the charge-sheet is not framed.” 2 This Court finds it difficult to accept the extreme submission made on behalf of the petitioner. On a plain reading of Rule-9(7) it requires charge-sheet to be framed within three months from the date of issue of suspension. It nowhere mandates serving of the charge-sheet within three months. The fine distinction between the framing of the charge-sheet and service thereof has to be appreciated. This argument, in any event, loses its significance in view of the fact that charge-sheet has now been served upon him. Moreover, the Rule sought to be relied upon itself visualizes extension of that period of three months for a further period of four months only whereafter if charges are not framed the suspension shall be revoked. The subsequent part of the Rule permitting extension for another four months makes it manifest that the period of three months is not mandatory. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench order of this Court reported in 2008(1) P.L.J.R. 731 (Chandra Shekhar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) in support of the aforesaid submission. This Court finds that the issue discussed presently that the initial period of three months was not mandatory in view of the provisions in the same Rule 3 for extension by another four months as also that the period was for preparation of the charge sheet not service thereof are aspects which had not come up before the Division Bench at all. This Court finds no merit in this writ application. The same is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)