IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.953 of 2009 NAND KISHOR SHARMA son of Late Punit Sharma resident of village- Tola Larhi, Post Goriami, Police Station & Block- Alauli, District Khagaria at present under suspension on the post of Panchayat Sewak posted at Headquarter, District Panchayat Office, Khagaria Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria 3. The District Panchayat Officer, Khagaria 4. The Sub-divisional Officer Gogari, District Khagaria 5. The Block Development Officer Parbatta, District Khagaria 6. The Block Development Officer Beldaur, District Khagaria 7. The Block Development Officer Parbatta, District Khagaria ----------- 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 Chaurhali Gram Panchayat in Beldaur Block within the district of Khagaria. He is aggrieved by the suspension order passed by the District Magistrate, bearing memo No. 544 dated 11.11.2008, 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 time provided under sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules neither 2 charge sheet was submitted nor his suspension was extended and according to the petitioner the order suspending him dated 11.11.2008, 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, Khagaria, who has passed the impugned order and if he is satisfied that order dated 11.11.2008, 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.)