Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 402 (PAT)

Raghunath Prasad v. State of Bihar

2012-03-05

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner seeks payment of salary for the period of suspension from 6.8.2008 to 31.3.2009 contending that the suspension stood revoked upon failure of the respondents to frame charges within time provided in Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Civil Services, Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. 3. Learned counsel submits that suspension was ordered on 6.8.2008. Charges were required to be framed within three months by 5.11.2008. Charges were not framed during the time period. Prior to the framing of charges after three months on 25.6.2009, the petitioner had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1030 of 2009 questioning the continued suspension after expiry of three months. 4. An objection had been taken at Paragraph 2 (iv) and 20 of the pleadings to the effect. The suspension stood revoked with effect from 5.11.2008 by operation of law as held in (2009) 4 PLJR 272 (State of Bihar Vs. Gyan Kumar Ram). Any formal order for revocation of the suspension on 16.9.2009 is irrelevant. Alternately, it was contended that the suspension came to an end on 5.3.2009, under Rule 9(7) as no charges were framed within seven months from date of suspension. 5. Counsel for the State submitted that in C.W.J.C. No. 1030 of 2009 no objection with regard to failure for framing charges within three months was taken as noticed in the order dated 9.2.2009. 6. The conclusion of the Full Bench decision in Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) are to be found in Paragraph-20. There can be no automatic revocation of suspension after three months. Charges can be framed even thereafter up to a period of seven months.`1 But after three months and before charges are framed, the delinquent objects, the suspension shall come to an end notwithstanding that seven months may not have expired. 7. A copy of the earlier writ petition has been appended to the supplementary affidavit filed today. The pleadings may contain several objections and grounds. Not all of them are pressed. The discussion contained in the order dated 9.2.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 1030 of 2009 does not reflect that any objection was pressed on behalf of the petitioner that charges had not been framed within three months. 8. In (Ram Bharosey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) (2010) 1 SCC 722 it was observed as follows :- “15. The discussion contained in the order dated 9.2.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 1030 of 2009 does not reflect that any objection was pressed on behalf of the petitioner that charges had not been framed within three months. 8. In (Ram Bharosey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) (2010) 1 SCC 722 it was observed as follows :- “15. It is experience of one and all that in the memorandum of appeal or revision, several grounds are taken/pleaded but at the time of the arguments the learned advocate would confine himself to few points which he considers to be best and presses only those points to be considered by the Court. It is not the case of the appellant that a particular point was argued but is not dealt with by the High Court. In the memorandum of special leave petition no grievance is made by the appellant that certain points were urged but were not considered by the High Court. As the learned Advocate for the appellant and others had emphasised three points before the High Court, the High Court was justified in considering those points and not adverting to all the points which were raised in the memorandum of appeal.” 9. But, that does not detract from the legal position that charges have admittedly not been framed against the petitioner within a period of seven months from the date of suspension, 6.8.2008. Charges were required to be framed by 5.3.2009. It has been framed on 25.6.2009. The suspension therefore stands revoked after seven months as discussed in Paragraph-20 (e) of Gyan Kumar Ram (supra). The petitioner is held entitled to salary. In what manner the period of suspension has to be treated is for the disciplinary authority to decide. 10. The formal issuance of an order of revocation dated 16.9.2009 for a suspension which stood revoked by operation of law on 5.3.2009 is inconsequential and cannot deprive the petitioner of the relief. 11. Let the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. The Court has made no observations with regard to the pending departmental proceedings which are required to be concluded expeditiously on its own merits in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed. ?