JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for quashing the order contained in memo no. 620 dated 16.7.2019 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), for commanding the respondents to immediately vacate the suspension order of the petitioner and to post him at an appropriate place and for other reliefs to which he is found entitled. By way of an amendment petition which was allowed on 29.9.2020, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 issued under the signature of the Circle Officer, Barauli. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he was posted as a Revenue Karamchari in Circle Office at Manjha in the district of Gopalganj, on the basis of a viral video wherein the petitioner was seen taking illegal gratification for mutation of a land, by order contained in memo no.620 dated 16.7.2019 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, he was placed under suspension. The Circle Officer, Barauli was directed to frame charges under Prapatra 'ka' and to make the same available along with the evidence relied upon, to the District Revenue Branch, Gopalganj within three days. The petitioner was relieved by order dated 19.7.2019 by the Circle Officer, Manjha directing him to join the headquarter as fixed in the order dated 16.7.2019. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been suspended on 16.7.2019, chargesheet should have been framed within three months from the date of issuance of suspension order i.e. by 16.10.2019. It is submitted that no order was passed renewing the order of suspension of the petitioner. Even if the said order had been passed, nevertheless, chargesheet was still required to be framed within further period of four months which ended on 16.2.2020 and thus in any case of the matter the order of suspension of the petitioner stood automatically revoked on 16.2.2020, if not on 16.10.2019 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relies on the judgment in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relies on the judgment in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Gyan Kumar Ram [2009 (4) PUR 272 (FB)] and more particularly paragraph no.20 thereof. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) the order of suspension of the petitioner stood revoked on 16.2.2020 even without passing of any formal order by the respondent authorities. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on 29.2.2020. Thus at the time of his retirement the petitioner was neither under suspension nor was any departmental proceeding pending against him. It was much later on 1.7.2020 that charges were framed under Prapatra 'ka' and the same was sent along with letter contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 by the Circle Officer, Barauli to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. It is submitted that no copy of the same was served on the petitioner who came to know about the same only after it was brought on record in the instant case as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent nos.3 to 5. It is further submitted that the chargesheet is in teeth of Rule 17(3) of the Rules having been issued by the Circle Officer who not being the appointing authority is not empowered to issue the charge memo. The same is also in violation of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as the departmental proceeding has been initiated without obtaining the sanction by the State Government. Thus it is prayed that the order of suspension as contained in order dated 16.7.2019 be quashed, for payment of consequential benefits including the arrears of salary and for quashing the letter contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 of the Circle Officer, Barauli enclosing copy of the charge sheet with the same. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that although it is true that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.7.2019 and charge sheet was framed on 1.7.2020, however it was for the reason of the Covid-19 pandemic that the charges in the Prapatra 'ka' could not be furnished within the time prescribed as per the Rules. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that although it is true that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.7.2019 and charge sheet was framed on 1.7.2020, however it was for the reason of the Covid-19 pandemic that the charges in the Prapatra 'ka' could not be furnished within the time prescribed as per the Rules. However, the departmental proceedings were initiated with the Circle Officer, Barauli sending Prapatra 'ka' vide memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 and the petitioner is facing departmental proceeding before the competent authority. It was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. It was further submitted that pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate an F.I.R. has also been registered being Barauli PS. Case no.252 of 2019 and the petitioner is also facing criminal prosecution. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and having perused the materials on record it transpires that the fact not in dispute are that in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. It was ordered that he would be paid suspension allowance and the Circle Officer, Barauli was directed to frame charge sheet in Prapatra 'ka' and to provide the same along with the evidence being relied upon, to the District Revenue Branch, Gopalganj within a period of three days. It is also not in dispute that the charge sheet in Prapatra 'ka' was framed by the Circle Officer, Barauli and sent alongwith his letter contained in memo no. 541 dated 1.7.2020 to the District Officer, Gopalganj. It would be relevant to quote Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 for ready reference : "9. Order of suspension ….……………………………………………….. (7) Charge-sheet must be framed within three months from the date of issue of suspension order failing which on expiry of three months, the suspension order shall be revoked unless the authority, which issued the suspension order, passes the order renewing the suspension alongwith reasons to be recorded in writing for the delay in framing of charge-sheet for a further period of four months : Provided that after the expiry of extended period of four months the suspension order shall stand revoked if the charge-sheet is not framed." 7. As to what would be the consequence of non-framing of the chargesheet within the prescribed period of three months and the extended period of a further four months under Rule 9(7) of the Rules was the subject matter of the Full Bench in the case of Gyan Kumar Ram (supra), paragraph no. 20 of which is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference. "20. In view of the above analysis, our conclusions are as follows:- (a) The time frame contemplated in Rule 9(7) is applicable only when an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding. On the other hand, if order of suspension is passed by taking into account the other eventualities contemplated in Rule 9, the time frame is not applicable and the order of suspension continues until it is revoked or deemed to be revoked under any of the provisions. (b) Where an order of suspension is passed in contemplation of a disciplinary proceeding, the charge-sheet is required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of such order. On failure to frame charge-sheet within the stipulated period, the concerned employee gets a right to claim that he should be reinstated in service and if any such application is filed, the order of suspension is bound to be revoked. (c) Where the employee fails to exercise such right of being reinstated by making necessary application, there is no embargo for the competent authority to pass any order extending the suspension for reasons to be recorded in writing and there is no requirement that such an order is bound to be passed before the expiry of three months and in a given case, such an order is passed even after the expiry of three months, provided the employee in the meantime has not exercised his right of being reinstated. (d) Similarly, the right of the employee to get reinstated is defeated if before he makes an appropriate application the charge sheet is framed. (e) Where the competent authority passes an order renewing the suspension, charge-sheet is required to be framed within such further extended period which cannot be more than four months from the date of expiry of the original three months and if no charge-sheet is framed, the order of suspension stands revoked even without passing of any formal order. (e) Where the competent authority passes an order renewing the suspension, charge-sheet is required to be framed within such further extended period which cannot be more than four months from the date of expiry of the original three months and if no charge-sheet is framed, the order of suspension stands revoked even without passing of any formal order. At that stage, of course, the authority is required to pass appropriate order of re-posting and at any rate, the concerned employee would be entitled to get full salary. (emphasis supplied) 8. It is the case of the respondents that on expiry of the period of three months of the order suspension which fell on 16.10.2019 no order renewing the suspension, as contemplated under Rule 9(7) of the Rules, was passed by the respondents. In any case of the matter on expiry of a further period of four months (with effect from 16.10.2019) i.e. on 16.2.2020, in view of the proviso to Rule 9(7) of the Rules read with paragraph no. 20(e) of the judgment in the case of Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) the order of suspension of the petitioner stood revoked on 16.2.2020, even without passing of any formal order. In terms of the Full Bench judgment the authorities at this stage were required to pass appropriate orders posting the petitioner who was entitled to get full salary. No such order was passed and the petitioner retired from service on 29.2.2020. Thus this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the arrears of difference of salary for the period from 16.7.2019 i.e. date that he was placed under suspension till the date of his retirement on 29.2.2020 after deducting the amount of the suspension allowance and/or any other amount which may have been paid to the petitioner for the said period. 9. The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in light of the judgment in the case of the Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) no chargesheet having been framed, his suspension stood revoked on 16.2.2020 without passing of any formal order and the petitioner retired from service on 29.2.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge sheet framed by the Circle Officer, Barauli is in teeth of Rule 17(3) of the Rules for the reason that the Circle Officer is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge sheet framed by the Circle Officer, Barauli is in teeth of Rule 17(3) of the Rules for the reason that the Circle Officer is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. It may be stated here that Rule 17(3) provides the procedure for imposing major penalties and the relevant Rules is being quoted hereinbelow for ready reference : "17. Procedure for imposing major penalties. - (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under this Rule, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge; (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain- (a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant; (b) a list of such document by which, and a list of such witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained." (Emphasis supplied) Herein itself it would also be relevant to refer to Rule 2(j) of the Rules which defines "disciplinary authority" "2. Definition. - For the purposes of these Rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,- …………………………………………………….. (j) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Rules of a particular cadre, 'Disciplinary Authority' means Appointing Authority or any other Authority authorized by it who shall be competent under these Rules to impose on a government servant any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 of these Rules; 10. Thus from reading of Rule 17(3) it transpires that when it is proposed to hold an enquiry against a Government servant like the petitioner herein, under this Rule the disciplinary authority is to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbeheavour as a defined and distinct article of charge. The disciplinary authority as per Rule 2(j) means the appointing authority or any other authority authorised by it. There is no controversy to the fact that the District Magistrate is the appointing authority of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority as per Rule 2(j) means the appointing authority or any other authority authorised by it. There is no controversy to the fact that the District Magistrate is the appointing authority of the petitioner. From the contents of the order of suspension dated 16.7.2019 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate it would transpire that it is he who has directed/authorized the Circle Officer, Barauli to frame charges in Prapatra 'ka' and to provide the same to the District Revenue Branch, Gopalganj, with the supporting evidence within three days. Thus the Circle Officer, Barauli in carrying out the directions as contained in the order of suspension dated 16.7.2019 framed the charges under Prapatra 'ka' and sent the same along with his letter dated 1.7.2020. Thus the charges in Prapatra 'ka' having been framed by the Circle Officer who was duly authorized by the District Magistrate, in view of the provision of Rule 17(3) read with Rule 2(j) of the Rules, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality in the same and it is not in violation of Rule 17(3) of the Rules. 11. The last contention on behalf of the petitioner was that in terms of proviso (a) to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, departmental proceeding shall not be initiated save with the sanction of the State Government and the same having been initiated in the present case, the order dated 1.7.2020 passed by the Circle Officer, Barauli contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 be quashed. It may be stated here that by order dated 2.7.2020 the Circle Officer, Barauli sent the charge sheet framed by him against the petitioner in Prapatra 'ka' in compliance of the directions issued to him by the District Magistrate contained in the order of suspension of the petitioner dated 16.7.2020. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with a copy of the chargeshet and he came to learn about it only when it was brought on record by the respondents in the instant case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even from perusal for the contents of letter dated 1.7.2020 of the Circle Officer, Barauli it would transpire that no copy of the same has been marked to the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even from perusal for the contents of letter dated 1.7.2020 of the Circle Officer, Barauli it would transpire that no copy of the same has been marked to the petitioner. 12. Rule 43(b) provides to the State Government the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it and the right of ordering the recovery from pension for the pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during his service. It further provides that such departmental proceeding if not instituted while the Government servant was on duty either before retirement or during reemployment shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the State Government. So far as the instant case is concerned, as discussed in detail hereinabove, it is not the case of either of the parties that the memo of charges in Prapatra 'ka' was served either by the Circle Officer, Barauli or the District Magistrate, Gopalganj or any other authority on the petitioner. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding has been instituted against him after his retirement without obtaining sanction of the State Government, in opinion of this Court is pre-mature. Explanation to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules states that the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him. The charges as contained in letter dated 1.7.2020 having only been sent by the Circle Officer, Barauli to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj and the same not yet having been issued to the petitioner, the same cannot be said to be in violation of proviso to Rule 43(b). Thus the Court finds no merit in this contention of the petitioner. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the contentions discussed above the petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary for the period from 16.7.2019 i.e. date of his suspension till 29.2.2020 i.e. the date he retired from service. 14. The writ application stands allowed to the above extent.