IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1356 of 2009 1. PRADIP KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE KANDH BIHARI SHARAN VILL- THAWE, P.S- THAWE, DISTT- GOPALGANJ…Petitioner……..Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECREATARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA……………Respondents……Respondents. with LPA No.1612 of 2009 1. SURENDRA PRASAD MAHTO………………………Petitioner…….Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA…………….Respondents…….Respondents. ----------- For petitioner:- Mr. Ranjan Kumar Srivastava, Advocate For Respondents:- Mr. A. N. Deo, SC-X ----------- 4. 05-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State and perused the order under appeal dated 07.09.2009. 2. By that order the writ Court reconsidered its earlier order dated 04.08.2009 passed in CWJC No. 9202, 9203 and 9204 of 2009, while considering some other writ petitions raising similar issue relating to right of a suspended Govt. employee to seek revocation of suspension order on 2 account of delay in framing of charges in departmental proceeding. 3. The writ Court has mentioned that the order under appeal was passed after hearing the senior counsel appearing in the three writ petitions noticed above and the reason has also been indicated. The earlier order was passed without noticing that the suspension was ordered against the appellants not only under Rule 9(1) (a) on account of disciplinary proceeding but also under Rule 9(1) (c) which is applicable where a case against the Government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the Govt. servant in public interest. 4. It is not in dispute that Rule 9(7) has been considered in several judgments of this Court including a recent full bench judgment and it is well established that the delay in framing of charges beyond three months requires renewal of the suspension order only where the suspension is on account of disciplinary proceeding as envisages under Rule 9(1) (a). 5. Thus, taking a correct view of law, the writ 3 Court has passed the correct orders that petitioners’ suspension being also under Rule 9 (1) (c ), would not be adversely affected and would not stand revoked on account of delay as contemplated under Rule 9 (7) of the Rules. 6. An attempt was made before us to submit that under the Rules, it is not competent for the appointing authority to order for suspension both under Rule 9(1)(a) and under Rule 9(1) (c) because of the word ‘or’ between different sub-sections. But this submission is misconceived. There is no such prohibition on the power of the competent authority under the Rules. The use of the word ‘or’ cannot mean that the competent authority under appropriate case cannot decide to proceed with a disciplinary proceeding as well as to lodge a criminal case and to pass suspension order on account of both the events. Such power of the employer is well recognized under service jurisprudence and the Bihar C.C.A Rules, 2005 does not contain any contrary provisions. 7. Hence, we find no merits in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed in limine. 8. It goes without saying that if appellants prefer any representation before the competent authority, the 4 same may be considered by the authority in accordance with law but while considering the representation, the authority must keep in its mind the view taken by the writ Court in the order under appeal also. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C. M. Prasad, J. )