IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13891 of 2009 GYAN PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 03.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 24.1.2008 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Other issues are not relevant for consideration at this stage in view of reliance placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of The State of Bihar & ors Vrs Gyan Kumar Ram reported in 2009 (4) PLJR 272 holding at Para 20(a) as follows:- “20(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”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends from Annexure 3 that the charges have been framed only on 23.9.2008 much beyond the period prescribed under Rule 9(7) on fulfillment of which the suspension stands revoked as distinct from the need for an application for revocation of suspension before framing of charges provided for under Rule 9(2) as discussed in the Full Bench judgement referred to above. Learned Counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submission that on the face of it prima facie charges have been framed after expiry of the period provided in Rule 9(7) the original suspension being in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The order of suspension dated 24.1.2008 is therefore not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. Let the departmental proceeding be concluded expeditiously. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)