Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1351 (PAT)

Rajkishore Sah v. State Of Bihar

2009-10-30

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Assailing the suspension learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of suspension was in contemplation of a departmental proceeding and charges having not been framed within seven months under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, in terms of the Full Bench decision reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 272 (The State of Bihar & Ors. V/s. Gyan Kumar Ram & Ors.), paragraph-20, the order of suspension stands revoked by operation of law. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General-3 appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the proceedings stated to be pending relate to the. investigation and criminal trial under a vigilance case. Additionally, the order of suspension is under Rule 9(1)(c) to which, according to the Full Bench itself, the time limit prescribed under Rule 9(7) is not applicable. 4. This Court will test the order of suspension on basis of the recitals contained therein. When the language used in the order of suspension is clear and admits of no ambiguity the mere nomenclature of the provision cited shall be of no relevance. This Court finds it difficult to hold that the pending proceedings as explained by the learned Additional Advocate General-3 does not relate to departmental proceedings, but relates to investigation and the criminal trial. The impugned order bifurcates the issues by first dealing with the investigation and criminal trial under the vigilance case. It then goes on to state that, and departmental proceedings, are pending/contemplated against the petitioner. 5. This Court in Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) at paragraph-20(a) has held that where the order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a departmental proceeding, the time limit provided for in Rule 9(7) shall be applicable. The impugned order falls within the ratio of the decision. Since the writ application is being disposed without a counter affidavit, this Court directs respondent No. 2, the Director-cum-Principal Secretary to now only ascertain from the records if charges have been framed or not within a period of seven months from 4.3.2009 as a matter of fact as distinct from the issue of service of the charges. 6. If he is satisfied that charges have not been framed, the suspension shall stand revoked by operation of law. 6. If he is satisfied that charges have not been framed, the suspension shall stand revoked by operation of law. If the situation be otherwise, he is only required to record his finding on facts whereafter the impugned order of suspension shall require no interference and the departmental proceedings shall continue in accordance with law. 7. Let such decision by the Principal Secretary be taken expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. The writ application stands disposed.