IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10283 of 2010 1. Chhabilal Das S/O Dahru Das R/O Vill Chhapriyadih, P.O.Kojhi, P.S.Phulidumar, Distt-Banka, Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Primary Middle School , Chakadih, Distt-Banka Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Sri Divesh Sehra, District Magistrate Banka, Distt-Banka 4. The District Returning Officer-Cum-District Magistrate Banka 5. Kumod Narayan Jha, District Superintendent Of Education Banka, Distt-Banka 6. The Returning Registration Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer Banka, Distt-Banka 7. The Assistant Returning Registration Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer Banka, Distt-Banka ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Dinu Kumar & Shiv Kr. Prabhakar, Advocates For the State: Mr. S.B.Kumar, SC 7. ----------- 3. 5.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the office order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure-1) issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Banka by which the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The facts of the case are within a narrow compass. By the impugned order dated 26.5.2010 the 2 petitioner was suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. On 11.10.2010 the petitioner had filed a representation for revoking his suspension as no charge-sheet has been filed within three months of the passing of the suspension order. Subsequently, on 11.12.2010 charges were framed. Thereafter on 15.1.2011 a letter was issued renewing the suspension of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Gyan Kumar Ram and others: 2009(4) PLJR 272, in para-20 of which it has been held as follows:- “ In view of the above analysis, our conclusions are as follows:- (a) The time frame contemplated in Rule 9(7) is applicable only when an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On the other hand, if order of suspension is passed by taking into account the other eventualities contemplated in Rule 9, the time frame is not applicable and the order of suspension continues until it is revoked or deemed to be revoked under any of the provisions. (b) Where an order of suspension 3 is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the charge- sheet is required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of such order. On failure to frame charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the concerned employee gets a right to claim that he should be reinstated in service and if any such application is filed, the order of suspension is bound to be revoked. (c) Where the employee fails to exercise such right of being reinstated by making necessary application, there is no embargo for the competent authority to pass any order extending the suspension for reasons to be recorded in writing and there is no requirement that such an order is bound to be passed before the expiry of three months and in a given case, such an order is passed even after the expiry of three months, provided the employee in the meantime has not exercised his right of being reinstated. (d) Similarly, the right of the employee to get reinstated is defeated if before he makes an appropriate application the charge- sheet is framed. (e) Where the competent authority passes an order renewing the suspension, charge-sheet is required to be framed within such further extended period which cannot be more than four months from the date of expiry of the 4 original three months and if no charge-sheet is framed, the order of suspension stands revoked even without passing of any formal order. At that stage, of course, the authority is required to pass appropriate order of re-posting and at any rate, the concerned employee would be entitled to get full salary.” In the aforesaid conclusions of the Full Bench it is clearly laid down that on failure to frame the charge within the stipulated period, the employee gets a right to be re-instated in service. If any such application is filed, the order of suspension is bound to be revoked. It is only if an order extending the period of suspension giving reasons for the same is passed before the employee has exercised his right to be reinstated that suspension can be continued. It is evident that in the present matter the petitioner has filed representation on 11. 10.2010, on which date neither the charges were framed nor any order extending the period of suspension had been passed although more than three months had elapsed since 26.5.2010 when the suspension order was passed. 5 In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has right to be reinstated and the respondent-authorities are obliged to pass appropriate order of re-posting the petitioner and the petitioner would also be entitled to get full salary. It is however, made clear that since in the meantime, the charges have already been framed, it would be open to the disciplinary authority, if it is deemed necessary, to pass fresh order of suspension in accordance with law. The writ application is accordingly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions. S.Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)