IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11220 of 2011 Md.Mahfooz Alam, son of Md. Salalhuddin, resident of Village – Singhi, P.O. Ara Town, District – Bhojpur at Ara ________ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhojpur at Ara. 3. Deputy Collector, Establishment, Bhopur at Ara. 4. The Circle Officer, Ara Sadar, District – Bhojpur at Ara. ______ Respondents ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh. For the State : Mr. Ram Das Singh, AC to SC 12. ----- 02. 16.9.2011 Petitioner was working on the post of Anchal Amin posted in the district of Bhojpur. He fell in a trap led by the State Vigilance Department when he demanded a sum of Rs.2000/- as bribe. He was caught red-handed and taken into custody on 3.11.2009. Chargesheet was also submitted in this case on 30th December, 2009. This led to his suspension in terms of Anneuxre-1 dated 10.2.2010. Petitioner remained in custody till he was granted bail by the High Court. He stepped out from the prison on 15.9.2010. He gave his joining in terms of Annexure-2 on 16th September, 2010. The Circle Officer, Ara Sadar sought guideline on the issue wherein he was informed that in view of the order of suspension petitioner has to report to the headquarter fixed under the order of suspension as that will be treated to be his place of posting during the pendency of the proceedings. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of sub-rule (7) of Rule-9 of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005 and 2 the interpretation given thereto in a recent decision of the Division Bench, in the case of Anand Swarup @ Anand Swaroop vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 1021, that there is deemed suspension of an employee the moment he is taken into custody as well as deemed reinstatement the moment he is released from prison and reports for duty. If the law laid down by the Division Bench is taken into consideration, then petitioner’s joining has to be accepted and he will be treated to be out of suspension and to that extent the prayer of the petitioner is supported by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench. There is an obligation upon the respondent therefore to revoke the suspension of the petitioner which is operative against him in terms of Annexure- 1. It is, however, clarified that the respondent authorities are not precluded or barred from passing a fresh order of suspension if they so desire keeping in mind that they do have the requisite power even in accordance with the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Anand Swarup alias Anand Swaroop(supra). In view of the above, the ball is in the court of respondents to decide whether the petitioner is required to be put under suspension a second time over or not. However, so far as Annexure-1 is concerned, that will have to go and the same 3 stands quashed. Writ is allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)