IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.7346 of 2011 ====================================================== Chakreshwar Sharma, son of Late Binda Sinh, resident of East Boring Cenal Road, House No.54, Kavi Raman, Nageshwar Colony, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Department of Home Police, Patna. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police cum sub Divisional Police Officer, Fatuha. 4. S.D.O. Patna City, Patna. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== 2 16.05.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the basis of wireless message, as contained in Annexure-1, petitioner was put under suspension. Subsequently, charge memo has also been served on the petitioner, copy whereof is Annexure-3. She submits that petitioner did not get the two documents cited as exhibit in the charge memo. Therefore he has applied to the respondents for the same, vide Annexure-5 and 5/A, to enable him file his reply to the charges. However, the same has not been served on the petitioner so far. She also submits that in fact the charge is on the basis of a nonest ground that the petitioner was retained for patrolling duty at the time of Namaj prayer near the Idgah. She submits that in fact those documents do show that the petitioner was detained for night duty and was not assigned any duty near the Idgah at the relevant time. So far as the prayer of the petitioner for supply of the documentary exhibits along with the charges frame is concerned, he is entitled for the same, if the same has not yet been supplied. Hence the respondents are directed to supply the said documents, as requested by the petitioner by Annexure-5 and 5/A, positively within two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been put under suspension and the charge has been framed against him on nonest ground is concerned, the said requires verification and ascertaining of facts from the police records and examination of witnesses. Therefore this Court is not inclined to go into the issue under writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner is under suspension since last September 2010. It appears that charges were framed against the petitioner on 16.09.2010. It may be that the proceeding is held up only because the petitioner has not filed his reply. In the circumstances the respondents, after service of the two documentary evidences on petitioner, shall finally conclude the proceeding within four months thereafter, even if the petitioner does not choose to cooperate in the proceeding by filing his reply promptly and participating in the same. If the proceeding does not conclude within the time fixed as above, for no fault of the petitioner, his suspension shall stand revoked. The application is disposed of with the above observation and directions. PN (J.N. Singh, J.)