IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7372 of 2009 RAJ MANGAL RAM, S/o- Late Ram Govind Ram, resident of Village- Barahi Jagdish, P.S.- Purnahia, Distt.- Sheohar :--- Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Deptt. of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, India. 3. The Commissioner-Cum-Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Transport, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna :--- Respondents. ----------- 02. 03.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as a District Transport Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. He became accused in Vigilance P.S.Case No. 052 of 2006 registered on 13.9.2006 and was remanded to judicial custody on 14.9.2006. Appreciating the involvement of the petitioner in the said criminal case as also his judicial custody the competent authority of the State Government placed him under suspension by resorting to the powers contained in Rule 9 (1) (Ga) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). Against such order petitioner filed representation dated 11.8.2008, Annexure-6 after he was released from jail custody and requested the competent authority to recall the suspension order as the suspension order has served its purpose since petitioner had been released from jail. Petitioner further submitted in the representation that the authorities have not served on him any memo of charge and his continued suspension was violative of the Rules. In support of such submission reliance was placed by the petitioner on the provisions contained in Sub-Rule 2 (a) and (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules. The competent authority considered the representation dated 11.08.2008, Annexure-6 and rejected the same under orders dated 23.09.2008, Annexure-7 holding that as the petitioner was suspended for his involvement in the criminal case by resorting to the provisions contained in Rule 9 (1) (Ga) and as the criminal case is still under trial there was no occasion to - 2 - recall the suspension of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of this application has questioned the validity of the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2008, Annexure-7 on the self same two grounds that the same is violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Rule 2 (a) and (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules as after release of the petitioner from jail custody as also for failure of the authorities to serve the memo of charge within the required time provided under Sub-Rule (7) of the Rules the suspension order should be quashed. In support of such submission he has also relied on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Ras Bihari Singh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R 333, whereunder with reference to Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules the Division Bench observed that for failure to submit the memo of charge within the time prescribed under Sub-Rule (7) of the Rules the suspension was required to be revoked. 3. Present is the case in which the competent authority has placed the petitioner under suspension by resorting to the power under Rule 9 (1) (Ga) of the Rules which empowers the competent authority to place the Government servant under suspension during the pendency of the criminal case and as the criminal case in which the petitioner has been made accused is still pending for trial I do not see any illegality in the impugned order rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the application is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)