IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8021 of 2010 ===================================================== Shiv Nandan Mahato S/O Late Ram Bahadur Mahto R/O Vill & P.S.Matihani, Distt-Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department Of Health Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director-In-Chief, Health Services Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services Government Of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate Begusarai 6. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Begusarai 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Matihani, Distt- Begusarai. .... .... Respondents ===================================================== For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar,Advocate Mr. Arbind Kr.Singh, Advocate I For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi For Respondent No.6 & 7: A.C. To A.A.G. III ===================================================== 2 03.05.2011 Petitioner was a clerk posted in Primary Health Centre, Matihani. The respondents authorities were, prima facie, of the view that he had committed large scale irregularities in granting of benefits to the beneficiaries under what is known as Janani Bal Suraksha Yojna.They decided the suspension of petitioner on 31.03.2010 in anticipation of holding two departmental inquiries. After his suspension charge dated 8.5.2010 was drawn up against the petitioner and even served. The date of the charge-sheet is 8-5-2010 which has now been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner responded to the basic charges. One Enquiry Officer was appointed but since the Enquiry Officer was busy with many other responsibilities, therefore, nothing was done in the matter till date. Annexure-D now indicates that the earlier inquiry officer stood transferred and therefore now another inquiry officer has been appointed. New inquiry officer was directed to make inquiry and submit a report within a week. Annexure-D is dated 1.4.2011. We do not know a to what has happened in the last one month but obviously as per the petitioner nothing substantive has emerged in the inquiry by way of progress. There would have been no difficulty in allowing the respondents to continue with the suspension order of the petitioner provided they had not enacted a set of rules in exercise of power vested in them under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rule in question is known as Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The relevant rule which deals with suspension is rule 9. There are many sub-sections to the said rule and the legislators in their wisdom have set a time frame for conclusion of suspension and inquire. The words of such Rules at time has been interpreted to mean that they are mandatory rather than directory. In furtherance to the time frame which have been indicated in the said Rule the State Government specially the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has also issued a circular fixing or re-fixing time frame within which such inquiries are to be completed. This notification has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that if the State has promulgated a law or a set of rules then it is as binding on them as on a citizen. If there is failure on the part of the State to adhere to the rules then the benefits must accrue to the citizen because they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. Petitioner was suspended on 31.3.2010. By today i.e. 3rd May 2011, there is nothing on record to show that Inquiry has been completed and the report submitted. If that is so at least the suspension order of the petitioner has to go. Annexure-1 dated 31.03.2010 is hereby quashed. It however does not mean that the petitioner stands exonerated. The newly appointed inquiry officer would be obliged now to expedite the proceeding and conclude it within a reasonable time frame with a clear direction to the petitioner that he will cooperate in the inquiry and will not adopt delaying tactics merely because this Court has quashed the order of suspension. If the petitioner does not cooperate, that itself may be a ground for further omission and may be another round of suspension if he creates such a situation. Writ is allowed Annexure-1 stands quashed. PN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)