IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14391 of 2009 1. ANAND SWAROOP S/O LATE TULSI SAHANI VILL- RAGHUNATHPUR, P.S PAROO, DISTT- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR 4. UNDER SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT null GOVT. OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Sarvadeo Singh,Advocate For the State : Mr Santosh Kumar Singh, SC 22 ---- 2. 12.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 26.3.2007. It states that the order of suspension was under Rule 9(1)(C) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 in pursuance of his having been taken into custody, in a vigilance case on allegations of accepting illegal gratification. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has now been released from custody. The order of suspension was in contemplation of departmental proceedings and charges have been framed on 14.8.2007, in excess of three months from the date of suspension it stands vitiated in law, under Rule 9(7) of Bihar C.C.A. Rules 2005. The order of an authority will have to be tested on the basis of recitals contained in the order. The order of suspension does not state that it was in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The order clearly states that it was being issued under Clause 9(1)(c) in pursuance of having been taken into custody in a vigilance case on allegations of illegal gratification. Clause 9(1)(c) reads as follows:- “9. Order of Suspension: (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government by general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension when- (c) a case against the government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the government servant in public interest.” A Full Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Bihar & ors. Vrs Gyan Kumar Ram, 2009(4) PLJR 272, summing up discussion with regard to Clause 9 at Para 20(a) has held as follows:- “20(a). The time frame contemplated in Rule 9(7) is applicable only when an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On the other hand, if order of suspension is passed by taking into account the other eventualities contemplated in Rule 9, the time frame is not applicable and the order of suspension continues until it is revoked or deemed to be revoked under any of the provisions.” Even if the contention of the petitioner be accepted for the sake of argument that charges have not been framed within three months it is of no relevance as the law laid down by the Full Bench holds that even after expiry of three months from the date of suspension there is no automatic revocation of suspension and it is the delinquent who is required to apply for the same. If before he applies charges are framed, the limitation shall again not apply. It is not the case of the petitioner that he gave any such application. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)