IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7490 of 2002 BINOD KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. R.N.Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Assistant Counsel Ti Advocate General ------ 3. 28.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, while employed as an Excise Clerk in the office of Excise Superintendent, Muzaffarpur, was made an accused in Kazi Mohammadpur PS Case No. 196 of 1996 under Section 302/34 of the Penal Code which did not pertain to his official duties as a government servant but related to a purely private dispute. He was taken into custody on 9.8.1998 and was released on regular bail on 16.10.1998. It is his further case that after investigation no chargesheet was submitted with regard to him and that he was not sent up for trial. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is however unable to inform this Court as to what happened to the final report, whether it came to be accepted by the court concerned with regard to the petitioner or cognizance came to be taken against him differing with the same. Mr. Mukhopadhyay, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 13.10.1998 on grounds of unauthorized absence. This was the period of his custody which fell under rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code. Therefore after his release from custody the respondents issued a fresh order of modification of the suspension on 7.6.1999 placing him under suspension with effect from 9.8.1998. Even if this be purported to be one under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code no departmental proceedings have commenced against him and no chargesheet has been served upon him. On 4.1.2000 the respondents have then issued an order of revocation of the suspension order dated 7.6.1999 but that final decision with regard to the manner in which the period of suspension has to be treated shall be decided after disposal of Kazi Mohammadpur PS Case No. 196 of 1996 leading to the issuance of the formal order to that effect on 12.6.2000. Assailing the orders dated 4.1.2000 and 12.6.2000 postponing the issue of treatment of the period of suspension till disposal of the criminal case, learned Counsel submits that the ground is nonest. The petitioner not having been sent up for trial, no chargesheet having been submitted against him in the criminal case, nothing more survives and the respondents are required to take appropriate decision in light of the same. This Court finds substance in the contention on behalf of the State that the only intervening circumstances as to whether the final report was accepted by the Court with regard to the petitioner or cognizance came to be taken against him differing with the same is not available. This would materially affect the controversy in issue. If the petitioner has not been chargesheeted, the final form has been accepted, there is no summoning of him under Section 319 Cr.P.C., quite obviously the impugned orders are not sustainable. However, if the aforesaid circumstances do not exist and cognizance has been taken differing with the final report or the petitioner has been summoned subsequently under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the impugned orders shall require no interference. The writ application is therefore disposed with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate decision in the matter in light of the aforesaid discussion within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)