IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17601 of 2008 GHANSHAYAM PRASAD JAISWAL, son of Sri Tara Chand Prasad Jaiswal, resident of village and Post Officer- Khagara, Police Station- Sahu Parwat, Via Naugachhiya, District Bhagalpur at present suspended from the post of Panchayat Sewak and posted at Narayanpur Block fixing at Headquarter within the District of Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Bhagalpur 4. The Incharge Officer Public Grievance Cell Bhagalpur Collectorate Bhagalpur 5. The Block Development Officer Kahalgaon, District Bhagalpur 6. the Block Development Officer Narayanpur, District Bhagalpur 7. Basukinath Shukala son of Late Vijay Narayan Shukloa resident of village Barahut, Post Office Isipar, Police Station Pirpaiti, District Bhagalpur ----------- 02/ 07.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, who is praying for time to file counter affidavit, but in view of the nature of the order, which the Court proposes to pass, counter affidavit is not required to be filed. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as the Panchayat Secretary of Mathurapur Gram Panchayat in Kahalgaon within the district of Bhagalpur. He is aggrieved by the suspension order passed by the District Magistrate, bearing memo No. 594 dated 28.6.2008, Annexure-1 to this application, whereunder he has been placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the suspension order has been passed in terms of the provisions contained in Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). His continued suspension is violative of sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules, as according to the petitioner within the 2 time provided under sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules neither charge sheet was submitted nor his suspension was extended and according to the petitioner the order suspending him dated 28.6.2008, Annexure-1 is fit to be quashed, as violative of Sub- rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules. 4. Let the petitioner file representation highlighting the grounds which have been noted above in this order before the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, who has passed the impugned order and if he is satisfied that order dated 28.6.2008, Annexure-1 is violative of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules as the suspension of the petitioner has neither been extended nor he has been served with the memo of charge within the required time, then appropriate orders in accordance with law be passed, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. 5. It goes without saying that before disposing of the representation of the petitioner, subsistence allowance of the petitioner in terms of the suspension order must be paid to him. 6. In the event authorities decide that the continued suspension of the petitioner is violative of Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules, still they are not prevented in proceeding with the departmental proceeding. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)