IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5430 of 2009 DR.MD.KHALIL ANSARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra,Advocate For the State:- Mr. Lalit Kishore, A.A.G.No.III 2 28.4.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.5.2005 when departmental proceedings were also started. An inquiry report was submitted on 2.12.2005. Charge No.I was proved. Charge No.2 was partially proved,rest of the charges were not proved. The inquiry report states that in so far as the rest of the charges are concerned, the prosecution produced no evidence. On 17.8.2006 a second show cause notice on the proved charges with proposed punishment was issued. While this was pending, fresh departmental proceedings were initiated on 27.11.2007 in respect of the charges not proved. In the fresh inquiry charge No.III has been proved while charges Iv and V have not been proved. A fresh second show cause has been issued on 16.7.2008 and the matter is pending at that stage. The grievance in the circumstances is with regard to prolonged suspension. Learned counsel for the State submits that - 2 - charge No.I related to illegal appointments. In any event, the departmental proceedings were at the verge of conclusion. This Court is satisfied from the inquiry report dated 2.12.2005 that the petitioner has remained under suspension for a very long period for reasons attributed to the respondents themselves. Had they produced relevant materials and evidence in the departmental inquiry, findings could have been given in the inquiry report dated 2.12.2005 either for or against the petitioner when matters may have attained finality. The continued suspension of the petitioner, in the circumstances, is found attributable to the respondents themselves. In any event of the matter, even in the subsequent departmental proceeding the inquiry has been completed. Suspension is a measure resorted to prevent any embarrassment to the Government servant during the period of suspension and also to enable to conduct an impartial and fair departmental proceeding without let and hindrance by the employees concerned. Once the inquiry is over, those grounds no more exist. This Court is satisfied that in facts and circumstances of the present case there is no justification for this prolonged suspension of the petitioner at this stage. The order of suspension dated 11.5.2005 is - 3 - accordingly quashed. It is clarified that the present order shall have no bearing or import on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding in accordance with law in pursuance of the second show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 16.7.2008 which shall remain completely in the realm of the respondent authorities. The authorities shall be adequately obliged while considering the issue of the period of suspension in any final order to take appropriate decision in light of the aforesaid discussion of the prolonged suspension of the petitioner held attributable to the respondents themselves. The writ application stands allowed only to the extent indicated above. (Navin Sinha,J.) A.Kumar