IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17863 of 2009 1. RAM MANOHAR SINGH S/O PABARIT SINGH R/O VILL.- RATANPUR, P.S.- GIDHOUR, DISTT.- JAMUI, PRESENTLY POSTED AS HEADMASTER IN RANI PRABHAWATI HIGH SCHOOL, SANGRAMPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER (UNDER SUSPENSION) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUNGER 5. THE R.D.D.E. MUNGER 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MUNGER 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUNGER 8. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, MUNGER ----------- 2 21.4.2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. A very short point relates to continuation of the suspension order dated 6.7.2009 contained in memo no. 2105, issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby petitioner, holding post of Headmaster in Rani Prabhawati High School, Sangrampur, Munger, has been put under suspension, in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 9 Sub- Rule ( 7) of Bihar Government Servant ( Classification control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 provides that the memo of charge has to be issued within three months from the date of the passing of the suspension order, failing which the - 2 - suspension order has to be recalled. In case the charges have not been framed and served to the delinquent, the authority may pass an order of renewal of suspension for further four months, giving the reason as to why memo of charge could not be framed within the period specified. Since, in the present case the charges were not framed within three months as provided under Rule 9 Sub- Rule (7) of the Rules, and no order for its’ renewal was passed, as such continuation of suspension order is contrary to the Rule. Counsel for the petitioner further admits that now after expiry of three months period, charges have been framed and served, He is not hesitant in persuing the departmental proceeding but so far the suspension order is concerned, it must be. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.6. In Para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that memo of charges were framed against the petitioner and issued vide memo no.1158 dated 25.11.2009. The charges were received by the petitioner on 19.12.2009 vide letter no. 1845. It shows that much beyond three months’ period from the date of the issuance of the - 3 - suspension order; the charges were framed and served to the petitioner. No where in the counter affidavit, it is stated that before expiry of three months’ time any renewal order was passed as per the Rule. In the given facts and circumstances, the continuation of the suspension order will be in violation of the provisions under the Rule, as such the order dated 6.7.2009 contained in memo no.2105, is quashed. The respondents have liberty to issue any fresh order of suspension, in case it is felt that on account of revocation of suspension, departmental proceeding is not continuing smoothly. In case fresh suspension order is issued, the respondents will assign reason for the same. The writ application stands disposed off. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar