IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19264 of 2010 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE SITA RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF NEW AREA CHITAUR NAGAR, P.S. AURANGABAD(TOWN), DISTRICT AURANGABAD(BIHAR) . Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD (BIHAR). 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT BOARD AURANGABAD. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT BOARD, AURANGABAD. 5. THE DISTRICT ENGINEER DISTRICT BOARD AURANGABAD. ----------- 03. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Zila Parishad, Aurangabad(hereinafter referred to as the Zila Parishad). 2. Petitioner has been placed under suspension under order dated 17.3.2010, Annexure-1B. It is submitted on his behalf that chargesheet in the light of the suspension order, Annexure-1B has not been served on him. Counsel also states that proceeding in the light of the earlier chargesheet dated 20.4.2007 has also not been concluded so far, although petitioner filed his written defence much earlier. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I direct the competent authority of the Zila Parishad to conclude the earlier proceeding pursuant to chargesheet dated 20.4.2007, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of this order. So far suspension of the petitioner pursuant to order dated 17.3.2010, Annexure-1B is concerned, the authorities are directed to serve the memo of charge on the petitioner, if not already served within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner should file his written defence within another two weeks from the date - 2 - of receipt of the charge memo by him, the authorities should conclude the second proceeding within six months from the date of filing of the written defence by the petitioner. In case, there is no default on the part of the petitioner in smooth conduction of the second proceeding, but the proceeding is not concluded within six months, the authorities may consider the desirability to revoke the suspension of the petitioner. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)