IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9261 of 2011 1. Abdul Matin son of Late Amiruddin R/o village-Ratan Parauli, Police Station-Bhagwanpur Hat,Dist. Siwan. 2. Mananjay Tiwari, son of Late Bamdeo Tiwari, R/o village- Kapiya Jagir, P.S. Maharajganj,Dist.Siwan. ---Petitioners. Versus 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board through its Secretary, Bidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. The General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tirhut Electricity Supply Range, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Electrical Superintending Engineer, Electric Supply Circle, Chapra. 4. The Electrical Executive Engineer, Electric Supply Division, Siwan. 5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer Electrical Supply Sub-Division, Maharajganj, Siwan. --Respondents. ----------- 03 26.07.2011 The two petitioners have approached this Court questioning the sustainability of order dated 03.11.2010 as contained in Annexures 1 and 1/I whereby they were placed under order of suspension in contemplation of the departmental proceeding. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Board wherefrom it appears the charges have already been framed and served on the petitioners by order dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure A series). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge(s) framed against the petitioner are lame charge(s), if not erroneous. He made diverse submissions in support thereof. It is also contended that the Board have resolved to adopt Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 2005 (for short ‘Rules 2005’). Relying on Rule 9(7) of the Rules 2005, it is submitted that the suspension order passed against them requires to be annulled/modified/withdrawn. I have heard the parties. This Court, at this stage, would refrain 2 from pronouncing its view on the merit of the charge(s) which has been framed in the present case. Petitioners shall have adequate opportunity to demonstrate the same in the proceeding itself. So far as the submission of the petitioner that in terms of Rule 9(7) of Rules 2005 the matter is required to be reconsidered by the authorities learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2010 (1) PLJR 110. Without pronouncing on the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, in this regard, this Court would permit the petitioners to first approach the concerned authority by filing appropriate application/representation within a period of 03 weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If any such representation/application is filed then the said authority shall consider and decide the said issue raised through the representation in accordance with law within a period of 04 weeks of its filing. The application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )