IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4658 of 2011 Kapildeo Singh, S/o late Fulchand Singh, R/o Village-Chhoti Chataiya, Post-Ekchari Diyara, P.S.-Pirpanti, District- Bhagalpur. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna. 3. Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Patna East & West Division, Patna. .......Respondents ----------- For petitioner :- Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. For the State of Bihar :- Mr. Shivam Singh Assistant counsel to A.A.G.-1. 04 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Court is not required to go into every aspect and the circumstances, under which the petitioner was arrested by the Vigilance Department while accepting bribe in the matter. The issue is limited to the continuance of the order of suspension, which was passed against him on 16.03.2007, contained in Annexure-1. Submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that in view of the provisions, contained in Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, the suspension of the petitioner, due to institution of the criminal case cannot 2 subsist any more in view of the fact that the order taking cognizance has been quashed by the High Court, as would be evident from Annexure- 7, to the writ application. The order of quashing may be on a technical ground but the fact that cognizance orders was quashed means there is no criminal case, as such, which is continuing against the petitioner. Whether the same will revive after a fresh order of sanction is passed by the sanctioning authority and whether the Vigilance Court will take cognizance of the same will be a contingent happening, which will be required to be seen at that stage. Since as of today the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner does not stand in terms of Annexure-7, the reason behind suspension of the petitioner disappears and Annexure-1 too will have to go. The order of suspension categorically states that it has been based under Rule 9 (1) (C) which relates to suspension on institution of a criminal case. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is a departmental proceeding going on against the petitioner. This Court has nothing to say on such a proceeding because 3 this is separate issue and the State has adequate powers under the Rules formulated by it to deal with the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, has made out a case for interference. Annexure-1 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Safik (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)