IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15665 of 2010 SURESH PRASAD SINHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 25.10.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of his order of suspension dated 24.5.1988 on the ground of it being unnecessarily prolonged, and that subsistence allowance is also due from March 2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that charges were served on 22.8.1988 duly replied on 20.12.1990 but the departmental proceeding also remains inconclusive. Counsel for the State submits that the allegations relate to financial embezzlement, defalcation and misappropriation of government money. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 24.5.1988 in contemplation of departmental proceeding, which has commenced but remains inconclusive. Primafacie a suspension continued from 24.5.1988 may appear prolonged. But it has to be kept in mind that the petitioner has also not chosen to question the same for these long years. He has acquiesced and therefore time is not relevant now. A prolonged suspension shall have to be balanced with the nature of the allegations also. The charges are 16 in number inclusive of more than one allegation with regard to financial embezzlement, misappropriation and defalcation of government money. The Court in the entirety of the facts and circumstances is not satisfied at this stage to interfere simpliciter on the plea of 2 a prolonged suspension. The Court arrives at this conclusion on the premise that the petitioner has not questioned the same for long years coupled with the nature of financial allegations. Whether the petitioner is required to be kept under continued suspension or not for the purposes of the departmental proceedings therefore becomes a question of fact to be decided by the Administrator in accordance with law. Discussing a challenge to an order of suspension on the ground of it being prolonged in Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516, the Supreme Court at Para 29 has observed as follows:- “29. Another plea raised relates to a suspension for a very long period. It is submitted that the same renders the suspension invalid. The plea is clearly untenable. The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not invalidate the suspension.” It appears from the order dated 3.4.2010 that an FIR has also been lodged in 1988 against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner is unable to assist the Court with regard to the status of the investigation or the police report submitted, if any, upon conclusion of investigation. In the entirety of the matter, this application is disposed with a liberty to the petitioner for representing against what he alleges is a prolonged suspension when the matter is required to be decided by the authorities within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. 3 If the respondents propose to continue with the suspension they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is expected that the departmental proceeding shall be concluded at an early date provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The dues of subsistence allowance, if any, are required to be paid in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)