IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8564 of 2009 LALIT NARAYAN MISHRA, Son of late Sarwalal Mishra, resident of Mohalla – Vivekanand Colony, Rajani Chowk, Purnea, P.S. Khanchi Hat, District – Purnea. At present posted as Deputy Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Under Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 5. The District Magistrate, Araria. …. Respondents. For the petitioner : - Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : - Mr. Prabhat Tekriwal, GA I. ----------- 02/ 24.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by his suspension which was communicated to him under resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No. 806 dated 20.2.2009, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 and has been issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 9(1) of the Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rules, 2005. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order is dated 20.2.2009 but till date he has not been served with the memo of charge, which was required to have been served within three months from the date of the suspension order and in case the charge of memo was not served within the period of three months, then the period of suspension was required to be extended, but in the case of the petitioner such extension has not been granted so far, so submitted the - 2 - learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the said submission it is said that the continued suspension of the petitioner is violative of Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules. 4. Let petitioner represent before the Principal Secretary of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, respondent no. 2 highlighting the submissions noted above and the respondent no. 2 shall be obliged to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner as early as possible in any case within one month from the date of its receipt. It goes without saying that if the continued suspension of the petitioner is in teeth of Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9, then the suspension of the petitioner be revoked but the proceeding initiated against him must be taken to its logical end. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)