IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11394 of 2007 RAGHVENDRA CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 14/05/20008 Re: I.A.No.5560 of 2007 This Interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for amending the prayer portion of the writ application by including the challenge to an order of suspension passed against the petitioner during the pendency of the writ application. Order of suspension has been brought on record as Annexure-21 to this Interlocutory application. Since the petitioner has been suspended during the pendency of the writ application, this Interlocutory application is allowed and the prayer of the petitioner in the writ application is treated to be modified to that extent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. In view of the order of suspension passed against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-21, petitioner has confined his prayer to a challenge to the said order of suspension - 2 - which is purported to have been passed under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was never in custody and, therefore, Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code was not at all applicable in the case and thus the suspension order should not have been passed under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code. A bare reading of Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code makes it clear that the exercise of power under Rule 99 is limited to a period during which a Government servant is in custody on a criminal charge and the said order becomes ineffective with his release. From Annexure-21 it appears that specific reference has been made to Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code for suspending the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State states that although Rule 99 has been mentioned in the suspension order but as the respondents had power to suspend the petitioner under other provisions of law and therefore, the order should be read as having been issued by the respondents under relevant provisions of law. In support of this contention, learned counsel for - 3 - the State has relied upon an order of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balmiki singh Vs. Bihar State Cooperative Land development Bank, reported in 2004(4) PLJR 235. In that case the appellant petitioner was compulsorily retired by the Bank in purported exercise of power under Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code. The Division Bench found that although under the Rules of the Bank itself there were specific provisions for compulsory retirement under Rules 232 and 237, which were similar to rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code and therefore, mere mentioning of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Bihar Service Code in place of Rule 232 and 237 of the Bank Rules did not invalidate the order of compulsory retirement. So far present case is concerned, Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code gives power to the respondents to suspend a Government servant under specific condition laid down therein. Admittedly, the condition laid down under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code was not fulfilled. Therefore, respondents were legally not entitled to issue any suspension order to the petitioner under the said Rule. - 4 - In the circumstances, in view of the specific provisions of Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code it has to be held that the order contained in Annexure-21 passed under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same is quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents will always be at liberty to issue fresh order of suspension of the petitioner under any provisions of law which may be applicable in the matter. Respondents will also be at liberty to proceed with the departmental proceeding which is said to have already been initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State submits that the charge memo has already been served upon the petitioner but the petitioner has not submitted his reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to co- operate in the departmental proceeding and submit his reply to the charge memo, if already not submitted, within one month. If the petitioner does so, the enquiry officer will proceed with the enquiry and make - 5 - all endeavours to complete the departmental proceeding and pass final orders within three months from the date of filing of reply to the charge memo by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application stands disposed of. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)