IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10125 of 2008 BIBHUTI RANJAN CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 14.7.2008 Petitioner, at the relevant time, served as Circle Officer cum Block Development Officer, Sono in the district of Jamui. He was made accused in a trap laid by the Vigilance Department vide Vigilance P.S. Case no. 20 of 2004 dated 25.11.2004 and was apprehended at the spot while accepting bribe of Rs 5500/- and remained in custody until 27.1.2005 but after his release from jail was placed under suspension under orders dated 9.2.2005 Annexure l. Perusal whereof indicates that the said order was passed with reference to the provision contained in Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code which inter alia provides that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been put under suspension while he remained in custody in connection with any criminal case or for realization of debt. The aforesaid order dated 9.2.2005 annexure 1 was assailed in this court by filing CWJC no.3413 of 2006 which was disposed of under orders dated 18.4.2006 directing the Secretary of the Department to consider representation of petitioner against the suspension order. Representation against the suspension - 2 - order has been considered by the authorities of the Department as is evident from the order dated 1.8.2006 annexure 9, the authorities however have not chosen to revoke his suspension as by now petitioner has languished in suspension for just over two years. Petitioner by filing the present writ application has assailed the original suspension order as also the order dated 1.8.2006 annexure 9. Perusal of the order dated 9.2.2005 annexure 1 indicates that thereunder petitioner was placed under suspension with reference to rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code with effect from the date he was taken in custody. In terms of rule 99 , a government servant is placed under suspension so long he is in custody. As custody of the petitioner was revoked on 27.1.2005 when he was admitted to the privilege of bail, suspension order dated 9.2.2005 should have been reviewed and thereafter appropriate order should have been passed with reference to either rule l00 of the Bihar Service Code or sub-rule (3) (ii) of rule 9 of the CCA, 2005, but till date petitioner is continued under suspension with reference the order issued under rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code which has become redundant. - 3 - In the circumstances, I quash not only the suspension order dated 9.2.2005 annexure 1 but also the order dated 1.8.2006 the order refusing to revoke suspension as contained in annexure 9 and authorities are directed to accept his joining and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. shahid (V.N.Sinha, J)