IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11926 of 2011 1. Choudhary Shiv Kumar Prasad Lt. Madhusudan Pd. Samarigarh, P.O. Samarigarh, P.S. Roh, Distt. Nawada and at present residing at Mohalla Ashok Nagar, Road No. 7/B, Police Station Kankarbag, Dist. Patna, Posted on the post of Bradma operator/incharge Cashier Electric Supply sub-division, Punpun,Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board Through Its Chairman Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Secretary, B.S.E.B. Vidyut Bhawan Bailey Road, Patna ---Respondents. ---------- 04 30.08.2011 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the Bihar State Electricity Board. Petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ to quash the office order/letter bearing memo no. 857 dated 02.07.2010 as contained in Annexure-3 whereby authority of the respondent Board after having released the petitioner from the suspension again placed him under suspension invoking the provision contained in Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code ( for short ‘the Code’). A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board and rejoinder thereto has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. While the petitioner was officiating as in-charge cashier at Punpun Electric Supply Sub Division, a complaint was lodged with the Vigilance Department that petitioner was demanding bribe in the sum of Rs. 1500/- for electric connection. Accordingly, Vigilance P.S. case no. 12 of 2010 was registered and a trap was organized whereater 2 he was caught red handed accepting the bribe. Accordingly, the respondent by order dated 09.03.2010 (Annexure-1) invoking Rule 99 of the Code placed him under order of suspension on the ground that he was caught red handed accepting bribe and was accused in Vigilance case under diverse Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and was in judicial custody. It is the case of the petitioner that by order dated 25.05.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court he was released from judicial custody on 29.05.2010 whereafter he submitted his joining in the Board headquarter on 03.06.2010 as the respondent by an order had revoked the suspension w.e.f. 29.05.2010 vide office order no. 1950 dated 02.07.2010. The respondent by impugned order dated 02.07.2010 again placed the petitioner under suspension. It is contended that in the light of ratio laid down by this Court in 2009(4) PLJR 272 (The State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Gyan Kumar Ram) the petitioner is entitled to be released from suspension since within 03 months of his re-suspension the respondents have not framed and served charge sheet on the petitioner. The respondents, in the counter affidavit, have brought on record the office order bearing no. 2226 dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure-B) to show that the charges have already been framed and the departmental proceeding shall now continue no sooner the petitioner submits his response to the article/memo of charge. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. There is no dispute between the parties that the two orders of suspension shall be deemed to have been passed in terms of the provision contained in Bihar Government Servants ( Classification, 3 Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 ( for short ‘the Rules’). It is also not in dispute that the memo/article of charge was not framed and served on the petitioner within the stipulated period of time as provided in Rule 9 (7) of the Rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order of suspension shall stand revoked if the memo/article of charge has not been framed and served on the petitioner within the stipulated period of time. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that in terms of the ratio laid down in State of Bihar (supra) the employee has a vested right to claim revocation of suspension if the order of suspension has been passed in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and on expiry of the stipulated period as provided under the Rules, he approached the authority for revocation of his suspension. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent Board has referred to and relied on paragraph no. 19 of the State of Bihar (supra). However, relying on paragraph no. 21 of the case State of Bihar (supra), it is contended that the full Bench has made it plain and clear that in such matter the respondents are not denuded of their right to place the delinquent under order of suspension if the situation/facts so warrants. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not controverted the aforesaid stand of the petitioner. However, it is contended that since the petitioner remained under suspension for more than 03 months and during the said period the article/memo of charge could not be framed and served on him and the petitioner moved the authority for revocation of suspension and subsequently to this Court by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner shall deem to have complied with the requirement of law as clarified in paragraph 4 no. 19 of the judgment. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this much is evident that within the stipulated period of time, the charge sheet could not be served on the petitioner. Petitioner approached the authority for revocation of suspension as would appear from Annexures 6 and 7. Since the authorities did not pass any order on that representation he approached this Court and lodged the present application on 22.07.2011. The article/memo of charge (Annexure-B) was framed and communicated to the petitioners and others vide letter bearing office order no. 2226 dated 12.07.2011. The stand of the petitioner in the rejoinder is that the same was made available/served on him on 19.07.2011. It thus appears that the petitioner having found that the respondent have not framed and served article/memo of charge on him within the stipulated period of time approached the authority for revocation of his suspension and as such in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of State of Bihar (supra) the respondents were obliged to pass an order revoking suspension of the petitioner. At this stage, this Court may notice at the cost of repetition that the authority thereafter could have passed a fresh order putting the petitioner under suspension if the situation/facts so warrants. It is the stand of the respondent Board that petitioner was caught red handed while accepting bribe and is facing a criminal charge thereagainst and as such the facts/ situation would warrant the continuance of the petitioner under suspension. In view of aforesaid discussion I am inclined to interfere with the order contained in Annexure-3 putting the petitioner again 5 under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding as the respondents did not frame the article/memo of charge and served on him within the stipulated period of time whereafter the petitioner approached the authority with a prayer to revoke his suspension. Accordingly, I quash the order as contained in Annexure-3. The respondents are at liberty to pass a fresh order of suspension against the petitioner on consideration of all relevant materials on record. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)