ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the respondents to release the petitioner from suspension and for setting aside the order of suspension dated 07.01.2012 (Annexure-1) passed by General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Kosi Electric Supply Area, Saharsa as well as the order of Joint Secretary of the Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’ for the sake of brevity) dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure-2) confirming the order of petitioner’s suspension and for grant of other consequential reliefs. 2. The claim of petitioner was that he was appointed as Junior Electrical Engineer in the Board and was promoted to the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer and during the relevant period he was posted in the Electric Supply Sub-Division Purnea (West) when the impugned order of his suspension dated 07.01.2012 was passed fixing his Headquarters in the Electric Supply Area, Saharsa. The said order was confirmed by the Joint Secretary, General Administration Department of the Board on 25.01.2012 fixing Electric Supply Area, Darbhanga as petitioner’s Headquarters during his suspension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the aforesaid impugned orders he filed representations before the Secretary of the Board on 12.05.2012, 04.07.2012 and 13.08.2012 and in the meantime he also filed a representation before the Member, Administration of the Board on 19.06.2012 (Annexure-3 to 6), but no heed was paid thereto and in the meantime about 10 months passed without any enquiry or proceeding and even without framing any memo of charges against the petitioner with respect to the allegations on which the order of his suspension was passed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claimed that petitioner was innocent as was apparent from letter of Electrical Superintending Engineer of Purnea dated 28.01.2012 (Annexure-8) and he was merely included in the Raiding Party, whereas the main accused persons as per the communication between the authorities had not been suspended and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9 (7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule’ for the sake of brevity) according to which if charge sheet is not framed within three months from the date of suspension, the suspension order was to be revoked. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 9 (7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rule’ for the sake of brevity) according to which if charge sheet is not framed within three months from the date of suspension, the suspension order was to be revoked. Hence he submitted that there was no occasion for continuation of the order of suspension for such a long period and it should have been revoked immediately after completion of three months from the impugned order dated 07.01.2012. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Board and its authorities submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 27.02.2012 on the basis of which Khazanchi Haat P.S. Case No.126 of 2012 was instituted for offences punishable under sections 119, 120B, 379, 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code along with section 13 (1) (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner along with others, whereafter criminal proceeding is continuing against the petitioner. He further submitted that in the departmental proceeding also charge sheet had already been submitted by the authorities on 29.08.2012 much before filing of the instant writ petition on 19.10.2012 and in the said charge sheet specific allegation had been made out against him with respect to abetment of theft of power and connivance of the petitioner with offender by allowing theft of power and avoiding effective step to prevent the offence resulting into loss of revenue of the Board. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that all the necessary steps had already been taken and the enquiry proceeding had started and even the charge sheet had been framed much earlier and if the petitioner wants to contest the enquiry, he must not avoid the enquiry and contest the same in accordance with law. 8. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that theft of electricity by the owner of B.T.S. Tower of M/s Reliance at Kosi Colony, Purnea falling under the jurisdiction of petitioner, the then Junior Electrical Engineer was detected as far back as on 15.10.2011 and on the same date the F.I.R. was lodged at Khazanchi Haat Police Station by Sri. R.N. Verma, the then Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Purnea. R.N. Verma, the then Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-Division, Purnea. It has also become clear that explanation was sought from the petitioner, in response to which he filed his explanation vide letter dated 22.11.2011 in which he admitted that he used to physically verify the said tower on regular interval, but he found the tower disconnected during his inspection. However, when a raid was conducted by the Raiding Team, the theft of power was detected. 9. It further transpires that much thereafter petitioner was suspended by the impugned orders and after full consideration of the matter by the authority concerned, charge sheet was framed against the petitioner on 29.08.2012 (Annexure-B) and thereafter by the Resolution of the Board dated 04.09.2012 (Annexure-A) a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, Enquiry Officer was appointed and necessary information was sent to all persons concerned including petitioner. 10. Thus the aforesaid admitted facts very clearly lead to the conclusion that when all the aforesaid steps have been taken by the authorities concerned after framing of charges and initiating proceeding etc., there is no question, now, of applicability of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 9 (7) of the Rules and to take any action thereunder. 11. The law is well settled that suspension is not a punishment and in addition to that the petitioner has failed to show any malafide in the action of authorities and furthermore after submission of charge sheet and initiation of the departmental proceeding, there appears to be no violation of any provision of law also. 12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.