IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6129 of 2011 Suresh Kumar SON OF SHIV PUJAN RAM RESIDENT OF NAGRI, P.S. CHARPOKHARI, BHOJPUR. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECVRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- For the Petitioner :- M/S. L. N. Das & Akhilesh Dutta Verma. For the State :- Mr. Kumar Ravish, A.C. to G.A. X ---- 4 30/06/2011 Petitioner was a Block Development Officer- cum-Circle Officer posted at Balrampur in the district of Katihar. On 7.1.2008 he was caught red handed, as the expression goes, receiving bribe by the Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar. Since the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, it led to issuance of order of suspension in terms of annexure-1 in February, 2008. Petitioner was granted bail. Duly released from custody he reported back but no joining has been taken nor the order of suspension revoked. Writ has now been filed seeking quashing of the order or atleast declaration in favour of the petitioner in terms of - 2 - the decision or ratio of a recent decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Anand Swarup @ Anand Swaroop Vs. state of Bihar reported in 2011(2) PLJR, 1021. The Division Bench in the case of Anand Swaroop (Supra) after taking note of the various provisions, specially rule 9 gave an interpretation that in certain circumstances including a situation where an employee is taken into custody and remains in custody beyond 48 hours is deemed to have been suspended but after his release there is an automatic revocation of suspension and nothing is required to be done by any of the authority muchless the controlling authority. If this is the interpretation which has been given with a further clarification or rider that if such an employee after release has to be put under suspension, then a fresh order is required to be passed under rule 9(1)(c ) of the Bihar Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. State has no option but to give a go-bye to the order of suspension which may remain only on paper. Since this Court is bound by the decision of the Division Bench which governs the issue, this Court has - 3 - nothing to offer in terms of its wisdom except that if this is the law decided by the Division Bench. Annexure-1 will have to go and it is quashed because the petitioner even otherwise would be deemed to have been put back in service in terms of the interpretation given by the Division Bench. Now it is left for the State to decide as to what action they would like to take against the petitioner on the question of suspension. This writ application, therefore, is allowed on the ratio as laid down in Anand Swaroop’s case (supra). AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)