JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. - The petitioner, an Assistant Engineer of Road Construction Department, has challenged the Notification dated 6th September, 1995 (Annexure-1), by which he has been placed under suspension. 2. Admittedly, the parent department of the petitioner is Road Construction Department of the State of Bihar. He was on deputation in one Bihar State Bridge Contruction Corporation and was posted at Ranchi. Certain allegations came to the notice of Lok Upkram Samittee of Bihar Legislative Assembly relating to collection of toll. The petitioner was posted as Project Engineer in the said Bridge Construction Corporation, under whose jurisdiction, the said toll used to be collected. The matter was reported by the Lok Upkram Samittee to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, where in after one F.I.R. was lodged on 28th of July, 1995 in the Mufassil Thana at Chaibasa, bearing Muffasil P.S. Case No. 70/95, under Section 409/420, LP.C. The petitioner is an accused alongwith another in the said case. Thereafter, the Respondents-State, from its Road Constrction Department have come out with the impugned order of suspension dated 6th September, 1995 (Annexure-1). on the ground that F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner and such order has been passed under Rule 49(A)(1)(a) of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 3. Though in the writ petition, various grounds have been mentioned to assail the order of suspension, but when the case was taken up, Mr. 8asudeo Prasad, Senior Advocate raised two grounds to assail the impugned order of suspension. They are stated hereunder : According to the counsel for the petitioner, under Rule 49 (A)(1)(b) of the aforesaid Rules, it is only if a case in respect to any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, a person can be suspended. It was contended that mere lodging of F.I.R. cannot be construed to be pendency of a 'case' with respect to any criminal offence. He relied on Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that if on a complaint case, a competent court of law, directs to make investigation and on that basis, if any enquiry is made and/or when trial remains pending before such court of law, only then it can be stated that a case of criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. It was submitted that in the case of petitioner as no case with respect to any criminal offence is pending before any competent court of law, the petitioner cannot - be suspended on mere lodging of one F.I.R. The other argument is alternative one. it was contended that even if on lodging of one F.I.R., it is construed that a case with respect to any criminal offence is pending but till investigation is being made and/or enquiry is conducted and/or trial started, no person be placed under suspension under Rule 49(A)(1)(b) of the said Rules. It was submitted that the respondents have not stated that after lodging of F.I.R. against the petitioner the investigation and/or enquiry has started, and in absence of such investigation and/or enquiry, the petitioner cannot be suspended on mere lodging of one F.I.R. 4. The counsel for the State, on the other hand submitted that mere lodging of F.I.R., the power is vested with the Respondent State to suspend its employee under Rule 49(A)(1)(b) aforesaid. It was contended on behalf of the State that the power is also vested with the Respondents-State, even to suspend the petitioner in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. 5. I have considered the argument of both the parties and have also gone through the records of the writ petition. It will be evident from plain reading of the writ petition and pleadings made by the petitioner therein, that he has stated that a police case has already been lodged against him, which is pending. In Paragraph No. 24 and 25, as well as other paragraphs of the writ petition, it has been stated that a criminal case bearing Chaibasa Muffasil case No. 70/95 is pending against the petitioner. It is further evident from the writ petition that the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail from the District & Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West), by one order dated 29th August, 1995 (Annexure-B). The said District and Session Judge, Singhbhum (West) granted bail in favour of the petitioner, after going through the case diary. This clearly shows that the matter was already under investigation, prior to 29th August, 1995. In this background, from the aforesaid admitted position, as narrated by the petitioner, it cannot be said that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. This clearly shows that the matter was already under investigation, prior to 29th August, 1995. In this background, from the aforesaid admitted position, as narrated by the petitioner, it cannot be said that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The word 'case' used under Rule 49(A)(1)(b) is general in nature, and the same not only includes any case pending before any competent court of law, but the same also includes a police case, which is already under investigation. Therefore, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. Apart from the same, it will be evident from the Notification of suspension dated 6th September, 1995 (Annexure-1) that the petitioner has been suspended as per Rule 49 (A)(1)(a) of the aforesaid Rules. The said Rule 49(A)(1)(a) empowers the State Government to suspend its employee in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. Such being the position, it can be safely stated that the petitioner has not only been suspended because of such F.I.R. but he has also been suspended in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, reference of Rule 49(A)(1)(a) of the aforesaid Rules having been cited in the suspension order (Annexure-1). 7. In the result, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, I dismiss the same.