IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11675 of 2010 GAYA NAND YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The submission of the petitioner is that he was placed under suspension by an order dated 29.1.2009. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 5.1.2010, in which of the two charges, he was exonerated in one and indicted in one. A minor punishment was proposed. While the matter was pending on an opinion dated 9.1.2010 that the department did not place sufficient evidence by way of documents before the Enquiry Officer an opinion has been expressed that further enquiry was required. Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the continuation of the suspension in the aforesaid background. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has represented recently on 2.7.2010 for revocation of his suspension. The legality or correctness in law of the order dated 9.1.2010 cannot be the subject matter of the present adjudication which shall necessarily have to be 2 tested in a separate proceeding, if assailed. However, from the recitals contained in the same very order, this Court on facts and circumstances is satisfied that if there was a deficiency in the enquiry cause was attributable to the respondents alone. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong in seeking to penalize the petitioner by an advantage to continue the suspension of the petitioner. This Court is therefore satisfied that there is no justification on the records as they stand before this Court placed by the petitioner for his suspension to be continued further. Let the representation of the petitioner be disposed of within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in light of the aforesaid discussion. If no final appropriate orders are passed within four weeks as directed above, the suspension shall automatically come to an end but without prejudice to the other rights of the respondents. The writ application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)