IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11470 of 2009 MAHENDRA PRASAD, Son of Late Harihar Prasad, resident of Village- Barandi, Police Station- Rahui, District- Nalanda :---- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai, District- Begusarai :--Respondents. ----------- 02. 04.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Executive Engineer. He is aggrieved by the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No. 452 dated 27.1.2009, Annexure-8 whereunder he has been placed under suspension with reference to the provisions contained in Rule 9 (2)(d) read with Rule 9(1)(d) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) with effect from 29.07.2008 the date on which he was taken in custody in connection with a criminal case. It is submitted on his behalf that petitioner was released in terms of the order granting him bail by this Court with effect from 20.12.2008 whereafter he submitted his joining before the departmental authorities on 22.12.2008 and thereafter the present impugned order has been passed on 27.1.2009 placing him under suspension with reference to the provisions contained in Section 9(2)(d) read with Rule 9(1)(d) of the Rules with effect from 29.07.2008 with further observation that the memo of charge framed against him shall be served on him separately. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no sooner he was released from jail - 2 - custody on 20.12.2008 there was no occasion for the authorities to treat him under deemed suspension in terms of the powers contained in Rule 9(2)(d) read with Rule 9(1)(d) of the Rules as till date even after passage of more than eight months the memo of charge has not been served on him and his continued suspension is contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 9 of the Rules for the reason that the authorities while passing the order dated 27.1.2009, Annexure-8 have not placed him under suspension with reference to the powers contained in Rule 9(1)(x) of the Rules. 3. Having heard the counsel for the parties this Court is of the view that petitioner should represent before the State Government highlighting the submissions noted above in the representation which should be considered and disposed of by the State Government in accordance with law by passing a speaking order as early as possible in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)