IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10579 of 2011 Santosh Kumar Jha Sri Ganpati Jha R/O Mohalla Balbhadrapur, P.S-Lahjeriasarai, Disstrict-Darnhanga--------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through Principal Secretary, Co- Operative Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Special Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Secretary Co-Operative Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 5. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Department, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga-----------------------------------Respondents. ----------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Pasupati Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sourendra Pandey, AC to SC-23. ---------------------- 3. 8.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding vide order dated 24.3.2011 contained in annexure-1. The reasons and the background are reflected in the said order of suspension. Submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since no chargesheet has been submitted on the petitioner within three months in terms of Rule 9 (7) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 2005, the suspension order would stand automatically revoked. Admitted position is that even till today no chargesheet has been served on the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel would have merited consideration provided there was no authority on this count by way of judicial declaration made by this Court. There is a Full Bench decision rendered in the case of State of Bihar & others vs. Gyan Kumar Ram reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 272 wherein this aspect of the matter has been dealt with. Significant is the ratio of the said decision in paragraph- 19 which is quoted herein below for ready reference: 2 Paragraph-19: Taking a leaf out of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and keeping in view the subtle distinction in the language in Rule 9 (7) on the one hand and in proviso to Rule 9(7) and Rule 9 (6) on the other, it would reasonable to construe that on failure on the part of the competent authority to frame charge-sheet within three months, the concerned employee gets a right ‘to seek for reinstatement’. If he exercises the right by filing appropriate application either before the competent authority or even in a court of law, the order of suspension is bound to be revoked and the competent authority cannot have any other option. However, if the employee fails to exercise such right of being reinstated and either the charge-sheet is framed or the order of suspension is renewed for reasons to be recorded in writing as envisaged in Rule 9 (7), ‘ the imperfect right’ of the suspended employee gets defeated. In other words, the employer has the authority to pass an order renewing the suspension for reasons to be recorded in writing not only within the period of three months, but also after the expiry of such period of three months, provided the employee has failed in the meantime to exercise his right of being reinstated by making appropriate applications. “ Reading the above paragraph of the judgment would show that no doubt the petitioner had right to demand revocation of suspension provided he moved the authority demanding so within three months from the date of order of suspension, in absence of service of chargesheet upon him or by moving the Court of law demanding such a revocation. But since neither the two facts nor action have been taken by the petitioner, taking queue from the Full Bench decision and the observation given in paragraph-19 the authority had power to extend the period of submission of chargesheet by an order to be recorded in writing. In the counter affidavit Annexure-B has been brought on record which has been issued by the concerned authority and is dated 21.7.2011. In exercise of power under Rule 9 (7) of the Classification Rules time has been extended for submission of chargesheet upon the 3 petitioner. This power can be exercised even beyond the period of three months in accordance with Full Bench decision. Once order extending the time frame comes into play, the time for submission of chargesheet gets extended to seven months. In view of above if no chargesheet is submitted upon the petitioner within seven months of the date of suspension, it goes without saying that the order of suspension of the petitioner will stand revoked. This writ application is disposed of with the observation as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)