IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18392 of 2009 1. DHURB SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH S/O ATE NAND KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL. AND P.O.- SIHANTA, BANGRA, MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, AT PRESENT - P.H.E.D. DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 2. DEV BHUSHAN MAURYA S/O LATE MOHAN MAURYA R/O VILL.- GARTHAULI, P.O.- HATHINI, P.S.- SARAYLAKASI, STATE-U.P. AT PRESENT P.H.E.D. DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 3. RAJ DEV RAM S/O LATE SATAI RAM R/O VILL.- KHANIYARA, P.O.- LALGANJ, P.S.- DAGAM, DISTT.- AAJAMGARH, U.P. AT PRESENT P.H.E.D. DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 4. RAMJEET PRASAD CHAURASIYA S/O LATE BRAHAMDEO RAM R/O VILL. AND P.O.- ESARPI DHAPATI, DISTT.- BANIYA, U.P. AT PRESENT P.H.E.D. DIVISION, GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1 2. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. REGIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARPUR 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 5. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 6. SUPERINTENDENT PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, CIRCLE CHHAPRA, CHAPRA 7. DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) PRADHAN MAHALEKHAKAR BHAWAN (AUDIT) BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA-1 8. RAJESHWAR RAM, ASSISTANT ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING BARAULI SUB-DIVISION, GOPALGANJ 9. SRI A.K. SRIVASTAVA (ARUNESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) THE THEN THEN ASSISTANT ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, BETTIAH (WEST CHAMPARAN) 10. DIVISIONAL ACCOUNT OFFICER, GRADE-1 PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, GOPALGANJ ----------- 02 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioners, are Junior Engineers in the Public Health Engineering Department at Gopalganj. They have been placed under suspension by separate orders dated 17.11.2009 2 and departmental proceedings have been initiated and charge-sheet served. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to persuade the Court that the petitioners were issued a show cause notice before suspension and even before expiry of the time to file their reply the suspension order was passed. He next submits that from an administrative report dated 3.6.2009 that the order of suspension is based on non-est grounds. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that there is no legal right with a corresponding legal duty that an order of suspension must be preceded by a show cause notice at the risk of vitiating the order. This Court finds no merit in the challenge to the order of suspension on that ground. Insofar as the administrative report dated 3.6.2009 is concerned, that is a matter for the Administrator to decide. If the petitioners represent for revocation of suspension in light of any administrative order/report, let the same be considered and disposed off in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of 3 receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)