IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19031 of 2010 1. Sanjay Kumar S/O Late Phuldeo Prasad R/O Vill.-Maldah, P.S.Barbigha, Distt.-Sheikhpura At Present Posted At Office Of Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Patna Division, Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibition Bihar (Patna), New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibition, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibition, New Secretariat, Patna. 5. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of Vigilance Suchna Bhawan, Patna. 6. The Superintendent Of Police, Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar 6, Circular Road, Patna. ----------- 3/ 25/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was taken into custody. Vigilance Case No.69/09 and Vigilance Case No.86/09 were registered against him on 12.6.2009. On 6.7.2009 he was placed under suspension with effect from the date of custody i.e. 12.6.2009 under Section-7/13(2) read with Section-13(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar C.C.A. Rules) under Rule-9(I)(c) read with Section-9(2)(a). He was released on bail on 29.10.2009. He made a request for revocation of the suspension on 21.1.2010 relying upon Rule-9(7) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 urging that charge-sheet had not been 2 framed within the period of 7 months from the date of suspension. On 11.3.2010 he again requested for revocation of his suspension and came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10390/10. The writ application was disposed on 3.9.2010 to consider his representation for revocation of suspension. The same has been rejected on 20.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relies upon an order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No.17803/08 disposed on 4.3.2009 that a suspension without framing of charges within the time fixed under Rule-9(7) was not sustainable in law. Reliance has been placed on 2010 (1) P.L.J.R. 979 (Raj Kishore Sah vs. State of Bihar) and 2011(2) P.L.J.R. 1021 (Anand Swaroop vs. State of Bihar) (D.B.). Learned counsel for the State has relied upon a Full Bench decision reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 272 (State of Bihar vs. Gyan Kumar Ram) delivered on 16.9.2009. The order of suspension of the petitioner in no uncertain terms states that it was being issued under Rule-9(I)(c) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules read with Rule- 9(2)(a). The Full Bench at paragraph-20, Sub-Clause- (a) has held as follows:- 3 “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.” Therefore, once the order of suspension is under Rule-9(I)(c), the time limitation provided for in Rule-9(7) does not operate. The reference to Rule-9(2)(a) in the suspension was based on a matter of fact consequent to the petitioner having been taken into custody. Once released, Rule-9(2)(a) may not be applicable, but that shall not wash away the legal effect of Rule-9(I)(c) obliterating the time limit under Rule- 9(7). The case of Raj Kishore Sah (supra) sought to be relied upon is completely distinguishable on its own facts based on the recitals in the order of suspension. It was observed at paragraph-4 that the Court shall read the order of suspension based on the language used therein which contained no ambiguity. In that background the Court declined to read into it the applicability of Rule-9(I)(c) merely because a vigilance case had also been instituted. The case is therefore 4 completely distinguishable on its own facts. In the case of Anand Swaroop (supra) Rule-9(I)(c) did not fall for consideration and the discussion at paragraph-5 relied upon on behalf of the petitioner pertained only to Rule- 9(2)(a). Be that as it may, charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 20.10.2010. Once this Court has held that the time limitations of Rule-9(7) are not applicable in an order of suspension under Rule- 9(I)(c) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules as laid down by the Full Bench, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order of suspension. Let the departmental proceedings be concluded within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order provided the petitioner himself cooperates. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)