ORAL ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the notification dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure-2) issued under the signature of the respondent no.3, whereby he has been placed under suspension in terms of Rule 9(1)(c) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (in short “Rules, 2005”), 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a very short question. According to him, Rule 9 (1) of the Rules, 2005 authorises the appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government to put a government servant under suspension on fulfilment of certain conditions indicated in sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 2005. It is pointed out that so far the present case is concerned, power of suspension has been exercised in terms of Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005 on the ground that a criminal case relating to disproportionate assets is pending against the writ petitioner. It is contended that in case a criminal case is pending against a government servant either under investigation or inquiry or trial, then he can be put under suspension only when the competent authority records his satisfaction that it is expedient to suspend such government servant in public interest. It is further contended that in the instant case, no satisfaction at all has been recorded by the competent authority showing expediency for putting the petitioner under suspension in public interest. Therefore, it is pleaded that in absence of such satisfaction having been recorded by the competent authority, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. It is further pointed out that so far the Full Bench Judgment of our own High Court, in the case of State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram [ 2009(4) PLJR 272 ] is concerned, it has considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rules 9(1) (a) and 9(7) of the Rules, 2005 only and it has not considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005. 4. 4. Learned Government Pleader No. 30 appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and by referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and 3 has tried to support the impugned order. It is contended by the learned State Counsel that admittedly a criminal proceeding as also a departmental proceeding are pending against the petitioner. Therefore, even if there is no reference of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Rules, 2005 in the impugned order, yet it should be construed that the impugned order of suspension has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 9(1) (a) as also Rules 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court passed on 18.12.2012 in W.P. (S) No. 7375 of 2012 (Ganauri Mistry vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 5. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court finds that indisputably, a criminal case is pending against the petitioner. This Court further finds that a departmental proceeding has also been initiated against him. However, the petitioner has been put under suspension in exercise of powers under Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005 on the ground that Vigilance P.S. Case No. 50 of 2013 dated 22.08.2013 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act, 1988 is pending against him. On plain reading of the impugned notification dated 18.02.2014, it is evident that the competent authority has not recorded its satisfaction showing the expediency for putting the petitioner under suspension in public interest on the ground of pendency of the criminal case. It is true that the Full Bench of our own High Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) while considering scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1)(a) and Rule 9(7) of the Rules, 2005 has not considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005. It is true that the Full Bench of our own High Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) while considering scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1)(a) and Rule 9(7) of the Rules, 2005 has not considered the scheme, scope and mandate of Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005. However, in paragraph 12 of the aforesaid judgment, the Full Bench has opined as under:- “It is a well entrenched concept that when the manner of exercising power is laid down, such power is to be exercised in the manner prescribed or not all.” For better appreciation of the points raised on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005, which reads as under:- “9(1): The appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government by general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension when- (a) xx xx xx (b) xx xx xx (c) a case against the government servant in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and the competent authority is satisfied that it is expedient to suspend the Government Servant in public interest.” 6. From plain reading of the Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005, it is evident that in all the cases where a criminal case is pending the government servants are not required to put under suspension. Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2005 does not mandate that a government servant be necessarily put under suspension on the ground of pendency of criminal case against him. It only contemplates that in case of pendency of criminal case either under investigation or inquiry or trial, a government servant can be put under suspension, by the competent authority, if he/she is satisfied that suspension of such government servant is expedient in the public interest. This aspect of the matter is completely missing from the impugned notification. So far the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ganauri Mistry vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is concerned, I am afraid that it does not support the case of the State of Bihar and its functionaries, rather it also helps the case of the writ petitioner. So far the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Ganauri Mistry vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supra) is concerned, I am afraid that it does not support the case of the State of Bihar and its functionaries, rather it also helps the case of the writ petitioner. The concluding paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein below for its better appreciation:- “ Having considered the dictum of the Apex Court and judgments of Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court, the law of suspension is summarised as under: When an appointing authority proceeds to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and order of suspension should not be passed in a routine or automatic manner. It is not necessary to place a Government employee under suspension in every case where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated. Appointing authority must be satisfied that continuance of the employee in the same post or at the same station may cause a reasonable apprehension that it will influence or prejudice the enquiry and the disciplinary proceeding. It should always be kept in mind by the appointing authority that though suspension is not a punishment, however, it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, an order of suspension should not be passed lightly, casually or without proper application of mind.” 7. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is left with no option, but to set aside the impugned notification dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent no.3, putting the petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure-2) is hereby quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. However, it shall not come in the way of the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries to pass a fresh order of suspension against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.