IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7025 OF 2010 1. SUNIL KUMAR S/O SHRI ANOOP LAL DAS R/O VILL.- KALARAMPUR, P.S.- NAYARAMNAGAR, DISTT.- MUNGER ………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MADHEPURA 7. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MURLIGANJ, DISTT.- MADHEPURA 8. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR ………………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 2 17/05/2010 The petitioner who is the Block Development Officer has been put under suspension on 24.09.2008 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding under Rule 9 (1) (KA) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. Charge sheet was submitted on 18.11.2008 and the petitioner was required to show cause, with respect to the allegation that he was not present at his Office on the date of inspection and that certain documents were missing from the Office. The show cause was duly filed by the petitioner and the same was sent for enquiry to the District Magistrate, Madhepura. The District Magistrate, Madhepura in turn has entrusted the enquiry to the Deputy Development 2 Commissioner, Madhepura. The enquiry report is still pending for consideration before the concerned authority. In the mean time, final form has been submitted as far as criminal proceeding is concerned but the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The power of the State Government to suspend Government servants pending a departmental proceeding or for the reason that there is a criminal case pending against him is not in doubt. The purpose of suspending a Government servant is to ensure that the enquiry is made without any interference and the charge sheet is framed within a reasonable time. Now when the charge sheet has been framed, this Court does not find any justification in continuance of the order of suspension, specially in view of the rule 9 (7) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which envisages that the charge sheet must be submitted within a period of three months from the date of issuance of suspension order failing, which the order of suspension shall be revoked, unless the authority who issued the order of suspension finds that there is sufficient reason for extending the order of suspension. In the matter in hand, the suspension order has continued for 18 months and the departmental 3 proceeding is still at the initial stage. The petitioner has been deprived of his subsistence allowance in the interim period which has lead him to face financial difficulty. In view of the aforesaid facts, I direct that the suspension order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 24th June, 2008 shall be revoked and the petitioner should be paid his subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The petitioner is also directed to co- operate in the departmental proceeding as and when required by the authorities. In the mean time, respondent no. 2 is directed to take steps in the matter and ensure that the departmental proceeding is concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)