IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.13083 of 2008 Dr. Ram Chandra Rai, S/O late Sahdeo Rai, resident of village & P.O. Purnahi, P.S.Waris Nagar, district Samastipur, presently Principal (suspended) Sant Kabir College, Samastipur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga 2. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga 3. The Governing Body, Sant Kabir College, Samastipur Through its Secretary namely Ramesh Rai, S/O Sri Jang Bahadur Rai, resident of village Jitwarpur Nijamat, P.O. Samastipur College, Samastipur, P.S. Samastipur (Muffasil) district Samastipur 4. Ram Nandan Rai, S/O Sri Ramdeo Rai, presently Posted as In-charge Principal, Sant Kabir College, Samastipur, resident of village Jitwarpur Bulechak, P.O. Samastipur College, Samastipur, P.S. Samastipur district Samastipur .. Respondents **** /4/ 30.01.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, counsel appearing for the Governing Body of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur, respondent no. 3, Shri Ram Nandan Rai, In- Charge Principal of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur, respondent no. 4 and also the counsel appearing for Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was functioning as Principal of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur, til 2 the date he was put under suspension by order, dated 21.03.2007, passed by the Secretary of the Governing Body of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur. The petitioner was named as accused in a criminal case and taken into custody on 21.01.2007. He remained in custody till 29.01.2008 when he was directed to be released on bail by the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50284 of 2007. Since the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with the criminal case, the Governing Body by order, dated 21.03.2007, put him under suspension with effect from 22.01.2007. In the meantime, respondent no. 4 was appointed as Principal of the said college. Petitioner’s case is that after being released on bail he submitted his joining before the Secretary of the Governing Body, respondent no. 3, but, it was refused and he was not allowed to give his joining. On refusal he sent his joining letter through speed post on 13.02.2008. Respondent no. 3, thereafter, sent a letter to the petitioner bearing no. 08/2008, dated 19.02.2008, wherein it is mentioned that since the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, as such, no decision has been taken in relation to his joining unless the legal opinion is taken on this point. Finally, a decision was taken 3 by the Governing Body not to accept his joining. Prayer of the petitioner in the present writ application is for quashing order of suspension, dated 21.03.2007, issued by respondent no. 3 and to command the authorities to accept his joining and allow him to function as Principal of Sant Kabir College, Samastipur. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4. In the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3 it has been submitted that since the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as other offence of Indian Penal Code amounts to a case of moral turpitude it was decided not to accept the joining of the petitioner. Petitioner remained in custody for more than twelve months and unless the criminal case is finally decided it will not be in the interest of the students as well as the administration of the college to accept the joining of the petitioner and allow him to function as the Principal of the college. Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 has further submitted that Section 69 of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, relates to the effect of detention of teaching and non-teaching employee of the University of a 4 constituent college. Section 69 sub section (4) provides that “an employee against whom proceedings of a criminal charge are pending shall, by special order to this effect, be kept under suspension during the period when he is not actually detained in custody or imprisoned (that is, when he is released on bail) if the charges made or the proceedings initiated against him are related to his status as an employee or in this manner may cause trouble in the discharge of his duties, or involves the question of moral turpitude”. 4. What I find that till date there is no such order of suspension issued by the Governing Body under Section 69(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. Except the suspension order passed on 21.03.2007, there is no order of suspension which can be presumed to have been passed under Section 69(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. In this view, stand taken by the respondents not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and allow him to discharge his duty as Principal of the college is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. 5. Another thing which is apparent that the criminal case initiated against the petitioner has no connection with the 5 discharge of his duties as a Principal of the college. Allegation in first information report is not connected with the functioning of the petitioner as Principal of the concerned college. In that view also Section 69(4) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, has no application in the present case. 6. Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 in support of his submission has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2006(1) P.L.J.R., 581 (Surendra Prasad Dubey Vrs. The State of Bihar). 7. I find that in paragraph 2 of this judgment also it has been considered that Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code empowers the authorities to put a Government servant under suspension against whom criminal charge or a proceeding is pending. The Section provides that in order to put a Government servant under suspension and the provisions contained in this section is obligatory to issue a specific order to that effect and that power can only be exercised when the charge may or the proceedings taken against the Government servant is connected with his position as a Government servant or likely to embarrass the Government servant in the discharge of the duty, as such, or involves moral turpitude. 6 The facts of the case relied upon by the respondents is completely different from the fact of the present case and, as such, has no application. 8. Considering the entire facts and the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the order of suspension of the petitioner, dated 21.03.2007, issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order, contained in Annexure 6 is quashed. The respondents are directed to accept the joining of the petitioner forthwith and allow him to discharge his duty of the post, he was working prior to issuance of the order of suspension. 9. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )