IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13983 of 2009 1. RAJ NARAYAN CHAUDHARY S/O LATE JAPAN CHAUDHARY VILL- MAKARA, P.S- NAYAGAON, DISTT- CHAPRA ----------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY RURAL WORKS DEPRTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA ------------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 05-11-2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by his order of suspension dated 9.4.2008 . It is submitted that till date no proper charges have been served upon him much less departmental proceeding initiated. Additionally the five allegations proposed as charges in the communication dated 18.6.2008 have been the subject matter of an earlier show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 23.1.2008. The petitioner replied to the same. No final orders have been passed with regard to four items and he has been censured with regard to one item. Therefore, there is no justification for the suspension of the petitioner on that account. Learned counsel for the State contended that if no final orders have been passed on the earlier cause shown by the petitioner, it shall still be open for the State to proceed against him in accordance with law. He additionally sought to persuade this Court that the allegations dated 18.6.2008 were not mere allegations but are a memo of five charges accompanied by evidence, on which charges are based. If the petitioner was earlier issued a show cause notice on - 2 - certain grounds, but it was not considered necessary to suspend him on those grounds and he has filed reply to the same, it does not stand to reason how the same grounds in a fresh show cause can now become a ground for suspension. This is based on the assumption that the charges in the two show cause notices are a verbatim the same. Additionally, he has been censured in one of the five charges in the earlier show cause, the question of suspension made on the very same charge may not be sustainable in the law. If the communication dated 18.6.2008 is urged to be a memo of charge , as suggested on behalf of the State, it has only itself to blame, if the petitioner has not filed his reply . The communication suggests that a departmental proceeding is contemplated asking him to show cause within 15 ( fifteen ) days , failing which an appropriate decision may be taken in the matter. Now the State contends that it is not a show cause notice but a memo of charge by . Naturally the petitioner is required forthwith within a reasonable time file his reply to the charges. The issue of his suspension and the issue of departmental proceeding at this stage cannot be equated and are required to be bifurcated . This writ application is disposed with direction to the respondents to re-examine the matter of suspension of the petitioner dated 9.4.2008 in light of the aforesaid discussions and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in so far his suspension is concerned within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of - 3 - receipt/production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondents. The order of suspension is , therefore, technically set aside for that limited purpose and it does not tantamount to an order final adjudicating existing for all purpose in so far the petitioner is concerned till the expiry of the period of four weeks . This writ application stands disposed off. NKS/- ( Navin Sinha, J)