DR SURESH PRASAD SON OF LATE BALDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVT OF BIHAR AND; UNDER SPECIAL SECRETARY, GOVT OF BIHAR, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Divisional Forest Officer. He became accused in a criminal case and was taken in custody and while he remained in custody he was placed under suspension in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") under notification of the Government bearing Memo No. 655 dated 07.03.2007, Annexure-1 with effect from the date of his custody i.e. 30.12.2006. While the petitioner remained injudicial custody charge-sheet in the criminal case was submitted bearing No. 33/06 dated 26.02.2007 and after submission of the charge-sheet the authorities issued fresh notification bearing Memo No. 1134 dated 14.04.2007, Annexure-2 with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-rule (1)(c) of Rule 9 of the Rules which empowers the disciplinary authority to place the delinquent under suspension during the pendency of the criminal case for investigation, enquiry or trial. Petitioner was subsequently released on bail and he submitted his joining on 21st January, 2008 whereafter he has been served with the memo of charge for conducting the departmental proceeding against him on 13.05.2008 under Annexure-4.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even after passage of more than one year there has been hardly any progress in the departmental proceeding and the notification placing him under suspension dated 14.04.2007, Annexure-2 be quashed for failure of the departmental authorities to serve the memo of charge within seven months of the service of the suspension order dated 14.04.2007 which was served on the petitioner while he remained in jail custody. In this connection reliance has been placed on the provisions contained in Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules.