IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8562 of 2009 PRABASH KUMAR, S/o Late Mahesh Chandra Das, R/o Village – Nawabganj, P.S. Manihari, District – Katihar. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 6. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hazipur. 7. The Under Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. … Respondents. For the petitioner : - Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : - Mr. R.B. Mahto, AAG -8 ----------- 02/ 24.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by his continued suspension which was made in view of the resolution of the State Government bearing Memo No. 11820 dated 29.11.2007. As according to the petitioner in terms of Rule 9 of the Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rules the memo of charge ought to have been served within three months of the service of the suspension order and if for any reason the memo of charge could not be served then suspension of the petitioner ought to have been extended in terms of Sub- rule 7 of Rule 9, but the counsel submits that neither the charge memo was served within the time nor the period of suspension was extended. The charge memo however was served on 10.6.2009 vide resolution bearing memo no. 5485 dated 10.6.2009, Annexure -3. - 2 - 3. In the background of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the suspension of the petitioner is in teeth of the provisions contained in Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9 of the Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rules. 4. Let the petitioner highlight the aforesaid aspect of the matter before the Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, respondent no. 2 by filing representation, which should be considered in accordance with law and if it is true that the continued suspension of the petitioner is in teeth of Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9, then appropriate orders be passed by the Principal Secretary as early as possible in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. It goes without saying that if the continued suspension of the petitioner is in teeth of Sub-rule 7 of Rule 9, then the suspension of the petitioner be revoked but the proceeding initiated against him must be taken to its logical end. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. DKS/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)