IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13893 of 2009 1. WAKIL PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE KISHAN PRASAD YADAV R/O KRISHNA KUTIR, ABHIYANTA NAGAR, P.S.- RUPASPUR, WEST OF CANAL, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 06/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 19.2.2009. The submission is that despite expiry of seven months under Rule-9(7) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) charges are yet to be framed. The suspension, thus, stands revoked by operation of law. Learned counsel for the State contended that the petitioner has been suspended under Rule-9(1) of the Rules. After his release from custody there is no need for any fresh order of suspension under Rule-9(6) of the Rules not being an order of suspension simpliciter in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, but on account of his involvement in a Vigilance Case the order, in fact, is one under Rule- 9(1)(c) and the time limitation prescribed in Rule-9(7) will not, therefore, be applicable. 2 An order of an authority challenged before this Court will have to be tested on basis of recitals contained in the impugned order read in its normal connotation as apparent from the recitals. Only in the event of any ambiguity in the order shall the question of any interpretation of the order arise. The impugned order of suspension refers to his involvement in a Vigilance Case, the investigation in respect thereof. It subsequently states that departmental proceedings were going on/contemplated. It is, therefore, apparent that the order of suspension was under Rule-9(1)(a) of the Rules. In that view of the matter, the time limitation prescribed in Rule-9(7) shall be applicable. It is not necessary for this Court in the present case to decide the issue of whether there was issuance of any fresh order of suspension or not vis-à- vis Rule-9(6) of the Rules in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ application is disposed with directions to respondent No.2 to examine the factual aspect whether charges had been framed within a period of seven months from 19.2.2009 or not as distinct from the service of charges. He shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order when 3 the provisions of Rule-9 of the Rules shall have to be given full effect along with his factual finding. Let such a consideration and necessary orders be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)