IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18099 of 2010 ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 25.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.2010 rejecting his representation for revocation of suspension dated 29.1.2009 in pursuance of the order of this Court in CWJC No. 12959 of 2010 preferred by him. It is submitted that in the departmental proceedings initiated after suspension the enquiry report was submitted on 29.11.2009 that he may have violated procedures but there was no material on record to hold that he was responsible for misappropriation or embezzlement. Differing with the same the authorities have decided to hold a denovo enquiry on the reasoning that the matter involved large amount of public funds and that proper materials had not been placed before the Enquiry Officer by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on an order of this Court in CWJC no. 11675 of 2010 directing disposal of the representation for revocation of suspension noticing that if the deficiency in the enquiry was attributable to the respondents alone there may not be sufficient justification for continued suspension and if the representation was not disposed within the time indicated the suspension shall stand automatically revoked. Counsel for the State supporting the impugned order dated 8.10.2010 submitted that in the present case, unlike the 2 order sought to be relied upon, the representation has been disposed. In CWJC No. 12959 of 2010, preferred by the petitioner, this Court directed disposal of the representartion in like manner as CWJC No. 11675 of 2010 with the further observation that the time period fixed therein shall be operating in the present case from the date that the petitioner submits his representation. The petitioner asserts in para 35 that he submitted a copy of the order of the Court before the authorities on 26.8.2010. They were then required to dispose his representation within four weeks, failing which the suspension was to come to an end automatically without prejudice to the other rights of the respondents. If what the petitioner contends aforesaid be factually correct the order rejecting his representation dated 8.10.2010 being beyond the period of four weeks, the order of suspension stood revoked by operation of the order of the Court on 25.9.2010. No further administrative order for implementation of the orders of the Court was required which was complete in itself. The petitioner shall stand therefore reinstated with effect from 26.9.2010 without prejudice to the other rights of the respondents. This order is made conditional on the issue of correctness of the submission made by the petitioner that he had submitted the order of this Court before the authorities on 26.8.2010. Unfortunately the order impugned dated 8.10.2010 refrains from taking note of the date when the order of the Court was submitted. If the authorities were a little cautious, more particularly where directions of the Court are concerned and had 3 passed orders with transparency on all facts, including relevant dates, matters would certainly have been more convenient and order passed with finality either ways. The impugned order dated 8.20.2010 is quashed. The writ petition is conditionally allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)