IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6466 of 2011 Anil Kumar, son of late Ishwar Sharan Lal, resident of House no.54, West Boring Canal Road, P.S. Sri Krishna Puri, Town & District – Patna. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. Under Secretary, Department of Commercial Taxes, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. Laxmi Narayan Das and Akhilesh Dutta Verma. For the State : JC to AAG. ____ 03. 25.07.2011 There is no dispute on the factual matrix that the petitioner was caught red-handed accepting bribe which led to his arrest and even incarceration. Consequence thereof was that petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 18.4.2007 in exercise of power under Bihar Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 205. The departmental proceeding going on has not yet concluded. In the meantime, certain legal developments have taken place, which is a decision rendered by a Division Bench in the case of Anand Swarup @ Anand Swaroop vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2011 (2) PLJR 1021. On an interpretation given to Rule 9 specially Rule 9(1)(c) the Division Bench came to an opinion that an employee will be deemed to be under suspension on the event of his arrest but on his release from custody he will be deemed to have been put back in service. In other words, his joining ought to have been accepted. This is the 2 interpretation given by the Division Bench which is binding upon me sitting singly. Counsel for the State submits that certain other provisions of the Rule have not been taken into consideration by the Division Bench, which is specially Rule 6(a). That by itself does not take away the effect of the Division Bench on the issue. The State may have an occasion to deal with the Division Bench decision in an appropriate case before an appropriate Bench. So far as this point is concerned, taking que from the ratio laid down in the case of Anand Swarup @ Anand Swaroop (supra), Annexure – 2 stands quashed. Petitioner would be permitted to re-join the department and the department would be free to post him where it wants taking into consideration the ongoing departmental proceeding against him, coupled with the allegations under which he came to be suspended. If the State wants to put the petitioner under suspension, they have to pass fresh order in this regard in accordance with law. Writ application to that extent stands allowed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)