JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The question of law in these two applications being common, they have been heard together and are being disposed by this common order. 3. The petitioners were taken into custody in pursuance of a vigilance raid.. Orders for suspension were passed while they were in custody with retrospective effect from the date of custody. These orders were under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 (hereinafter called as the Rules). The provision contemplates suspension when a criminal Offence is inter alia under investigation and it is considered expedient to suspend in public interest. 4. After they were released on bail, they gave their joining in the department. The contention is that no fresh orders for suspension have been issued after they have given their joining in the department. Alternately, charges have been framed more than seven months after the date of suspension. In either event of the matter, the continued suspension of the petitioners is not warranted in law. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that the initial order of suspension remains valid till modified or revoked under Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules. The limitation provided in Rule 9(7) of the Rules was not applicable to an order of suspension under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Rules. Charges stand framed and the disciplinary matter shall proceed in accordance with law. He relies upon a Full Bench decision in 2009(4) PLJR 272 (State of Bihar & Ors. V/s. Gyan Kumar Ram). 6. The rules provide for suspension in three different circumstances under Rule 9. This may be independent of the issue of custody of a Government servant. If he is taken into custody, Rule 9(2) provides for deemed suspension without formal orders, which expires on release requiring fresh orders after joining. The issuance of a formal order of suspension obviates the applicability of a deemed suspension. The formal suspension is then governed by Rule 9(6)(a) of the Rules. In such an event Rule 9(3)(ii) has no application as otherwise there shall be direct conflict between Rule 9(3) and Rule 9(6) of the Rules. 7. No elaborate discussion is required on the requirements of Rule 9(7) which stands explained by the Full Bench as applicable only to a suspension in contemplation or pendency of a departmental proceeding under Rule 9(1)(a) or Rule 9(3). 7. No elaborate discussion is required on the requirements of Rule 9(7) which stands explained by the Full Bench as applicable only to a suspension in contemplation or pendency of a departmental proceeding under Rule 9(1)(a) or Rule 9(3). The law postulates the time limitation under Rule 9(7) only in the specified circumstances. 8. As held by the Full Bench, the time limitation prescribed under Rule 9(7) is not applicable to an order of suspension under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Rules. 9. The original order of suspension remaining valid till modification or revocation under Rule 9(6)(a), the time limitation not being applicable, there is no merit in these writ applications. 10. Now that charges have been framed, let the departmental proceedings be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law, provided the petitioners themselves cooperate. 11. There is no merit in these applications. They are, accordingly, dismissed.