IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11537 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, aged about 47 years, S/O Shri Prabhu Nath Prasad, resident of Village- Kudari, P.O. Chaurma, P.S. Basantpur, District-Siwan.....................................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 3. The District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Inquiry Authority, Saran at Chapra. 4. The Block Development Officer, Garkha, P.O. & P.S. Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra. 5. The Assistant Director, Social Security Cell, Chapra, P.O. P.S. & District-Chapra.............................................................Respondents. ----------- 02. 07.09.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. Petitioner who is clerk but at the relevant time was serving as Nazir Incharge in the Social Security Cell, Chapra is aggrieved by the Order No. 230/Estt.,Chapra bearing Memo No. 1064 dated 22.07.2008,Annexure-,1whereunder the District Magistrate, Chapra, suspended the petitioner for misconduct with direction for payment of subsistence allowance. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his suspension order is violative of Rule 9(7) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 as the Memo of charge has been submitted after more than seven months of the service of suspension order and this Court should quash the suspension order. I regret not to accept such submission. True it is that in terms of the provision contained in Rule 9(7) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 the authorities are required to serve Memo of charge within three months - 2 - and if the same is not served within three months from the date of service of suspension order then the period of suspension is required to be extended but in the present case neither the period suspension was either extended or the Memo of charge was served within the required three months. In the circumstance, the suspension order should be deemed to have been quashed so submitted learned counsel for the petitioner, I regret not to accept such submission as from the writ petition it does not appear that the petitioner received the suspension order on 22.08.2008 itself. From the writ petition it does not appear as to when the suspension order was in fact served on the petitioner. From the charge sheet, Annexure-2, however, it appears that the same was served on the petitioner on 14.3.2009. In my opinion therefore, continued suspension of the petitioner at this stage is not violative of Rule 9(7) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and the writ petition is dismissed, however, with direction to the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the Memo of charge and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt of the written defence filed by the petitioner which should be filed within one month alongwith a copy of this order from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. In the event the enquiry proceeding is not concluded by the Enquiry Officer within time indicated in this order and the delay in concluding the enquiry is not attributed to the petitioner then the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the - 3 - desirability of revoking suspension of the petitioner. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. U.K. (V.N.Sinha,J)