IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1133 of 2009 Sarita Lal w/o Vinod Kumar, r/o mohalla – Janakpur, P.S. Buniyadganj, District – Gaya ……… Appellant Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director (Administration ) –cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna …………… Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh Mr. Vijay Bharti, Advocates For the State : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar,AC to GA V --- 2 16/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and perused the order under appeal dated 17.8.2009, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC. No.9822 of 2009 has been dismissed in limine on the ground that the appellant has filed successive writ petitions within one month and ten days on similar grounds. Learned counsel for the appellant has shown us from the relevant records that after disposal of the first writ petition by order dated 3.7.2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a representation, the period of 90 days from the date of 2 suspension order i.e., 17.4.2009 expired and still the authorities did not revoke the suspension order nor they extended the suspension and no charge-sheet was prepared and served. Copy of the writ petition shows that such additional ground to challenge the continued suspension was clearly mentioned in paragraph -1(b) which runs as follows: “For further issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately revoke the suspension in term of Rule 9 Clause 7 of Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule; Since no charge-sheet has been handed over to the petitioner despite lapse of 114 days of putting the petitioner under suspension and the same has not been renewed.” Thus a new ground on the basis of Clause 7 of Rule 9 of Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was taken in the second writ petition but that appears to have not been considered by the writ court which dismissed the writ petition on the premise that grounds were similar to those raised in the earlier writ petition. So far as merit of the matter is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a recent Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of 3 State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Gyan Kumar Ram, reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 272. In that judgment the Full Bench has held that on failure on part of competent authority to frame charge-sheet within three months, under Rule 9(7) of the Rules, the concerned employee gets a right to seek for re- instatement. If he exercises the right by filing an appropriate application either before the competent authority or even in a Court of Law, order of suspension is bound to be revoked and competent authority cannot have any other option. Learned counsel for the State has drawn our attention to statements made in paragraphs – 4 & 5 of a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant to suggest that charge-sheet was subsequently made ready and was sought to be served upon the appellant between 7th & 14th October, 2009 but she declined to accept the charge- sheet on 14.10.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that such denial was on account of pendency of this appeal but such subsequent filing of charge-sheet for a departmental proceeding does not change the legal position in view of 4 aforesaid Full Bench judgment and the authority concerned was bound to revoke the suspension order passed on 17.4.2009 because it was being continued beyond 90 days without framing charge-sheet and without passing any order for renewal of suspension. In view of aforesaid submission and the fact that second writ petition raising a specific new ground was filed in this court on 13.8.2009, we are of the view that the suspension order should have been revoked at least on 13.8.2009, when the writ petition was preferred before this court against such continued suspension, after service of copy upon the State. In that view of the matter, the suspension order passed against the appellant on 17.4.2009 is declared as revoked and to have become ineffective with effect from 13.8.2009, the date of filing of the writ petition. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Neyaz/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (S. K. Sharma, J.) 5