Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar Rajak vs The State Of Bihar on 11 November, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10369 of 2025
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Rajak, son of late Mahendra Prasad Rajak, Resident of
Village- Hanswar, P.S.- Manihari, District- Katihar, presently residing at Flat
No. 108 B Vina Vihar Apartment Nitibagh, Jagdeopath, P.S.- Rupaspur,
District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Inspector General of Police (Police Headquarter), Government of Bihar,
Patna.
6. The Deputy Secretary, Home Department (Police Section), Government of
Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Ms. Namrata Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
Mr. Hemant Raj, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Abbass Haider, S.C.-6
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 11-11-2025
The present writ petition has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following
reliefs:-
"i. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order
contained in Memo No.7757 dated 23.06.2025
whereby and where under the petitioner
(substantively appointed as Deputy Superintendent
of Police) has been suspended from service in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
2/44
exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9(1)(a)(c)
of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 as well as
Paragraph No.04 (ii) of letter number 17796 dated
21.09.2023
issued by the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
ii. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
certiorari for quashing and setting aside Memo
No.6288 dated 21.05.2025 to the extent to which the
suspension of the petitioner was revoked w.e.f. date
of issuance of order instead of revoking the
suspension w.e.f. 15.09.2022 as deemed suspension
of the petitioner from the date of his detention was
deemed to have ended on the date of joining after
release from custody on operation of legal fiction
stipulated in Rule 9(3)(i) of the CCA Rules, 2005.
The petitioner also assails Paragraph No.4 of the
aforementioned notification by which it has been
stipulated that the decision regarding salary for the
period of deemed suspension shall be taken on
completion of disciplinary proceeding inasmuch as
such stipulation is in teeth of the judgment and order
dated 28.04.2025 passed in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2025 in
which the Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the
disciplinary authority to take a decision on salary for
the aforementioned period of suspension within three
months from the date of receipt of the order.
iii. For issuance of an order, direction or an appropriate
writ for staying the operation of the order contained
in the Memo No. 7757 dated 23.06.2025 during the
pendency of the present writ application.
iv. For issuance of an order, direction or a writ of
mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to
issue orders of posting of the petitioner in
consequence of setting aside the order of suspension
contained in Memo No. 7757 dated 23.06.2025."
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
2. The present lis revolving around the
suspension of the petitioner has had a chequered litigation
history inasmuch as several petitions have been filed by the
instant petitioner and some intra-court appeals therefrom have
been disposed while others are still pending. In this background,
the brief factual matrix relevant for the present petition, as
culled out from the records, are that the instant petitioner had
appeared in the 53rd - 55th Combined Competitive Examination
(C.C.E) conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission
(B.P.S.C) and after successfully qualifying the same, was
appointed as Dy. Superintendent of Police in the Bihar Police
Services in the month of February, 2015. Previously, i.e., prior to
his appointment, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in
Economic Offences Unit P.S. Case 23 of 2012, a fact that he had
duly disclosed to the respondent authorities, during his
appointment to the services of Bihar Police Services.
3. Besides the aforementioned E.O.U. P.S. Case
No. 23 of 2012, the petitioner has two more criminal cases, and
all of which are at the root of the present controversy. For sake
of brevity, the relevant facts of the aforesaid three cases, as
culled out from the records are as under:-
4. Firstly, Economic Offences Unit P.S. Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
No.23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012 registered under sections 420,
468, 473 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
wherein, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
petitioner was not named as an accused, and was subsequently
implicated based on the confessional statement of the co-
accused. Pertinently, charge sheet was submitted on 30.06.2014
and the learned trial Court had taken cognizance in the case on
11.05.2015. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 26.11.2018 passed in Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.
553 of 2018 titled 'Ranjeet Kumar Rajak vs. State of Bihar
and Ors.' had stayed the further proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012, till further orders
(Annexure P-8).
5. Secondly, while the petitioner was posted at
Bihar Special Arms Police, BSAP-14, Patna, another F.I.R. was
lodged vide E.O.U P.S. Case No. 20 of 2022 dated 09.05.2022
under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal
Code, section 66 of the Information & Technology Act and
section 3 and 10 of the Bihar Examination Control Act, 1981.
The crux of the allegation was that in the 67 th Combined
Competitive Examination conducted by the B.P.S.C. on
08.05.2022, the question papers were spread and leaked even
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
before the examination had commenced. The petitioner was not
named in the aforesaid F.I.R, however, he was arrested on
12.07.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on bail
vide order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Patna and consequently he was released
on 14.09.2022. The petitioner had also preferred an application
vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.9757 of 2023 before this Court
challenging the rejection of his application for discharge and
vide order dated 12.05.2023, this Court had remitted the matter
back to the trial Court, upon which the petitioner was
subsequently discharged by the trial Court vide order dated
19.07.2023. The aforesaid order of discharge was assailed by the
State in Criminal Revision No. 193 of 2024 titled as 'The State
of Bihar through the Superintendent of Police, Economic
Offences Unit, Bihar, Patna vs Ranjit Kumar Rajak' and a
coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 had
dismissed the aforesaid criminal revision and the order of
discharge stood affirmed.
6. Thirdly, E.O.U P.S. Case no.30 of 2022 dated
05.08.2022 registered under sections 13(2) read with 13(i)(b) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. Now, turning to the disciplinary proceedings
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
initiated against the petitioner based on the criminal cases
instituted against him. Firstly, due to the pendency of Economic
Offences Unit P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 wherein charge sheet
had been submitted and cognizance thereunder was taken by the
Trial Court, the petitioner in contemplation of departmental
proceedings was suspended with immediate effect under Rule
9(i)(c) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 vide Memo No.2770,
dated 08.04.2016 (Annexure P-1). Admittedly, the petitioner had
disclosed the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case while
joining the services to the respondent authorities. The aforesaid
suspension was appealed by the petitioner vide memorial dated
20.05.2016 and supplemented by an application dated
24.08.2017, contending that the petitioner had duly disclosed the
pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against him, thereafter
upon duly considering the appeal/memorial preferred by the
petitioner, the competent authority vide Memo No. 7717, dated
21.09.2017 had revoked the suspension of the petitioner while
continuing the disciplinary proceedings against him. Pertinently,
as already noted herein above, the further proceedings in
connection with the aforesaid underlying criminal case i.e.,
E.O.U P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012, based on which the petitioner
was suspended vide Annexure P-1, had been stayed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure
P-8).
8. Then, secondly, as already noted that while
the petitioner was posted at BSAP-14 another F.I.R. i.e.
Economic Offenses Unit P.S. Case No.20 of 2022 dated
09.05.2022 was registered and the petitioner, who was though
not named in the F.I.R, was arrested on 12.07.2022. Therefore,
under the provisions of Rule 9(ii)(a) of the Bihar CCA Rules,
the petitioner was deemed to be suspended. A notification
placing the petitioner under suspension was issued vide memo
no. 7666 dated 02.08.2022 with effect from the date of his arrest
i.e., 12.07.2022 and his headquarters was fixed at Patna Police
Headquarter. The petitioner was granted bail by the learned
A.C.J.M., Patna on 13.09.2022 and he was released on
14.09.2022 and consequently, the petitioner joined services
before the I.G. (Police, Headquarter, Patna) on 15.09.2022.
However, on 20.03.2023 the respondent authorities issued a
resolution contained in Memo No.363 dated 20.03.2023
whereby disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the
petitioner and memo of charge along with statement of
imputations and list of documents and witnesses were supplied
to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
9. The aforesaid Memo No.363 dated
20.03.2023 was primarily based on the pendency of the E.O.U
P.S. Case No.20 of 2022 against the petitioner and the same also
made reference to the earlier departmental proceedings initiated
vide memo No.3715 dated 11.05.2016 which emanated from
E.O.U P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 and further also mentioned the
E.O.U P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 which was under investigation.
10. The petitioner had preferred an
application/representation dated 08.04.2024 before the Chief
Secretary-cum-Chairman, State Level Committee constituted
under Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011, for revoking his suspension,
since the criminal case based on which he was arrested, was no
longer pending against him and the petitioner stood discharged
which was also affirmed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.
Preferring an application under the Right to Information Act,
2005, the petitioner obtained the minutes of the meeting of the
aforesaid Committee dated 15.05.2024, wherein the
recommendation for revoking the suspension of the petitioner
was made.
11. The petitioner being aggrieved with his
continued suspension despite the provisions of Rule 9(3)(i) of
the Bihar CCA, 2005, had filed a writ petition viz. C.W.J.C.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
No.402 of 2025 seeking a direction from this Court that his
deemed suspension be declared as having ended from the date of
his resumption/joining under Rule 9(3)(i) of the Bihar CCA
Rules. The said writ petition was allowed by a coordinate Bench
of this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.02.2025 holding
that the deemed suspension of the petitioner shall be deemed to
end upon his joining/resumption of service in accordance with
aforesaid Rule 9(3)(i) and consequences shall flow accordingly,
therefore the respondents were directed to revoke the suspension
of the petitioner with immediate effect and issue consequential
orders of posting along with payment of full salary to the
petitioner from the date of his joining/resumption i.e.,
15.09.2022 after adjusting the subsistence allowance already
paid. Paragraph nos. 12 to 17 of the aforesaid judgment and
order reads as under:-
"12. There is also no dispute on the point that the charge
sheet has been issued to the petitioner on
12.01.2023, i.e, more than 90 days from the date of
order of suspension. The Minutes of the High
Powered Committee dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure
11B) also shows that the High Powered Committee
recommended for revocation of suspension of the
petitioner but even after lapse of almost nine months,
no decision has been taken by the concerned
authorities as yet for the reasons best known to them.
13. Taking into consideration the facts (as referred herein
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
above) that after release from the custody, the
petitioner gave his joining on 15.09.2022 (Annexure
P/4), therefore, as contained in Rule 9 (3) (i) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, the period of deemed suspension
of the petitioner shall be deemed to end when he
gives his joining. As no separate order of
continuation of suspension has been issued by the
Department, therefore, on this ground alone as well
as further taking into consideration the Minutes
dated 16.05.2024 of the High Powered Committee
(Annexure 11B) which also recommended revocation
of suspension of the petitioner, a strong case is made
out in favour of the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition preferred by the
petitioner stands allowed.
15. The respondents are directed to revoke the suspension
of the petitioner with immediate effect and they are
further directed to immediately issue order of posting
of the petitioner. It will be done within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of order of this
Court.
16. The authorities are further directed to make payment of
full salary to the petitioner with effect from
15.09.2022 after deducting the subsistence
allowance already paid to him during the period of
suspension.
17. However, the respondents are at liberty to continue
with the departmental enquiry, which is going on
against the petitioner, in accordance with the rules
and laws."
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment
and order, the State preferred an appeal viz. L.P.A. No.416 of
2025 before the Division Bench of this Court, and vide order
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
dated 28.04.2025, the order of the writ Court was modified to
the extent of sustaining the direction regarding revocation of
suspension of the petitioner however holding that the order
revoking the suspension of the petitioner had to be passed by the
respondent State (appellant therein), for the reason that without
a separate order of suspension, the petitioner could not have
been allowed to remain suspended. The Division bench had also
passed other directions and modifications and paragraph nos. 12
to 17 of the order passed by the Division Bench reads as under:-
"12. The learned Advocate General for the appellant /
State, however, submits that three cases were
initiated against the respondent / writ petitioner, out
of which, in one of the cases, he has been
discharged. In the present case, the suspension
order of the respondent /writ petitioner has not
been revoked.
13. An order revoking the suspension of the writ
petitioner had to be passed by the appellants for
the reason that without a separate order of
suspension, the respondent / writ petitioner could
not have been allowed to remain under suspension
for a long period. To that extent, we endorse the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct
for revocation of suspension of the respondent
/writ petitioner with immediate effect. It would
only be in the fitness of things that the
respondent/writ petitioner shall be given a posting.
This ought to be done within a period of 30 days
from the passing of the order. Needless to state
such exercise of power of posting of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
respondent /writ petitioner would be dependent on
whether the authorities would again take a
decision to put him under suspension or
otherwise, which liberty has also been granted by
the impugned judgment.
14. So far as making payment of full salary to the
respondent /writ petitioner w.e.f. 15.09.2022 till
the date he is given a posting, is concerned, that
would be the subject matter of the authorities
concerned, who shall take a decision in this
regard within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order before the
concerned authority.
15. Any departmental proceeding against the respondent /
writ petitioner also is required to be concluded
expeditiously provided, he co-operates in the
proceedings.
16. With the aforenoted modification in the judgment
impugned, the appeal stands disposed off.
17. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stand
disposed off."
13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the
Division Bench, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked by
the respondent-State vide memo no.6288 dated 21.05.2025,
however, the aforesaid revocation was made effective from the
date of issuance of order and not from the date on which the
petitioner had resumed/joined the services. It was also
mentioned in the aforesaid memo that the decision regarding
payment of salary shall be taken upon completion of the
disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
14. The petitioner joined his services on the
same date i.e. on 21.05.2025, however, vide impugned memo
No. 7757 dated 23.06.2025, the petitioner was again suspended
in exercise of powers under Rule 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(c) of the Bihar
CCA Rules read with paragraph no. 4(ii) of the letter No.17796
of 21.09.2023 and he was directed to report to his assigned
headquarters on 24.06.2025. As directed, the petitioner joined at
the Police Headquarters, Patna on 24.06.2025. The impugned
memo No. 7757 dated 23.06.2025 reads as under:-
Jh jathr dqekj jtd] rRdkyhu iqfyl mik/kh{kd] fcgkj fo'ks"k
l'kL= iqfyl&14] iVuk dks vkfFkZd vijk/k Fkkuk dk.M laå&20@2022
fnukad&09-05-2022 ds vUrxZr /kkjk&420] 467] 466] 120chå Hkkånåfoå]
66 vkbZåVhå ,DV ,oa 3@10 fcgkj ijh{kk fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e-1981 ds rgr
fnukad&12-07-2022 dks fxj¶rkj dj U;kf;d fgjklr esa Hksts tkus ds
QyLo:i fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½
fu;ekoyh&2005 ds fu;e&9¼2½ ¼d½ ds rgr foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk
la[;k&7666 fnukad&02-08-2022 }kjk fnukad&12-07-2022 ds çHkko ls
fuyafcr djrs gq, ladYi la[;k&3631 fnukad&20-03-2023 }kjk foHkkxh;
dk;Zokgh lapkfyr dh xbZ gSA
2- ,yåihå,å la[;k&416@2025 fcgkj ljdkj ,oa vU;
cuke jathr dqekj jtd esa fnukad&28-04-2025 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds
vkyksd esa Jh jathr dqekj jtd] rRdkyhu iqfyl mik/kh{kd] fcgkj fo'ks"k
l'kL= iqfyl&14] iVuk lEçfr fuyafcr dks foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk
la[;k&6288 fnukad&21-05-2025 }kjk vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls fuyacu
eqä fd;k x;k gSA
3- lkekU; ç'kklu foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad&17796
fnukad&21-09-2023 ds dafMdk&4¼ii½ ds ifjçs{; esa fcgkj ljdkjh lsod
¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e 9 ¼1½¼d½¼x½ ds
rgr vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk Jh jathr dqekj jtd] rRdkyhu iqfyl
mik/kh{kd] fcgkj fo'ks"k l'kL= iqfyl&14] iVuk lEçfr fcgkj iqfyl
eq[;ky;] iVuk dks vkns'k fuxZr dh frfFk ls iqu% fuyafcr fd;s tkus dk
fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
4- mä fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa Jh jathr dqekj jtd]
rRdkyhu iqfyl mik/kh{kd] fcgkj fo'ks"k l'kL= iqfyl&14] iVuk lEçfr
fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky;] iVuk dks vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh frfFk ls iqu%
fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gSA
5- fuyacu dh vof/k esa Jh jathr dqekj jtd] iqfyl mik/kh{kd dk
eq[;ky; fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky;] iVuk ds v/khu jgsxkA
6- fuyacu dh vof/k esa Jh jathr dqekj jtd dks mä fuxekoyh
ds fu;e 10 ds rgr thou fuokZg HkÙkk ns; gksxkA
7- blesa l{ke çkf/kdkj dk vuqeksnu çkIr gSA
fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls
gå@&
¼fouksn dqekj nkl½
ljdkj ds mi lfpo
15. It is these two orders, i.e., order contained in
Memo No. 7757 and Memo No. 6288 both dated 23.06.2025
that are being assailed in this petition.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the
outset submits that the disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner, emanates from the pendency of criminal cases against
him. The learned counsel has adverted to the letter vide Memo
No.5678 dated 07.05.2025 to support his submission which
reads as under :-
iVuk fnukad%&07@05@2025
fo"k;%& foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k&43@2024 ls lEcaf/kr nLrkost dh çfr
miyC/k djkus ds lEca/k esA
egk'k;]
funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZä fo"k; vkids vkosnu fnukad% 20-03-2025 ds
lanHkZ esa foHkkx esa miyC/k okafNr lwpuk@vfHkys[k fuEuor~ gS%&
¼i½ fcgkj iqfyl eq[;ky;] iVuk ds i=kad&2782 fnukad% 23-11-2022 ¼çfr
layXu½ }kjk çkIr xfBr vkjksi çi= ,oa lk{; çn'kZ ds vkyksd esa
foHkkxh; Lrj ij vkjksi i= xfBr fd;k x;k gSA
¼ii½ vkfFkZd vijk/k Fkkuk dk.M laå%&23@12 fnukad%&20-10-2012 ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
vUrxZr /kkjk&420] 468] 473] 120ch Hkkånå foå ds çkFkfedh uketn
vfHk;qä cuk;s tkus ,oa vkjksi i= lefiZr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vkids
fo#) ladYi la[;k%&9173 fnukad%&08-09-2022 }kjk ,d vU; foHkkxh;
dk;Zokgh la[;k&42@2024 lapkfyr gSA
¼iii½ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k&42@2024 vkfFkZd vijk/k Fkkuk
dk.M la0&23@2012 ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la[;k&43@2024
vkfFkZd vijk/k Fkkuk dk.M la0&20@2022 ij vk/kkfjr gSA
¼iv½ vkfFkZd vijk/k bdkbZ] fcgkj] iVuk }kjk mä çkFkfedh ntZ djus dh
dkjZokbZ dh xbZ gS] vr,o mä ds lanHkZ esa foHkkx esa dksbZ lwpuk@nLrkost
miyC/k ugha gSA
vuqå%&;Fkksä~ A
fo'oklHkktu
ljdkj ds mi lfpo
17. It is next submitted that out of the three
criminal cases which form the basis for keeping the petitioner
under suspension, firstly, E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012
predates the joining of the petitioner to the services and the same
was duly disclosed to the respondent authorities at the time of
joining. It is stressed by the learned counsel that the petitioner,
at the relevant time, was working as an Assistant Manager, in
the Central Bank of India, Shilong, Meghalaya. Further the
proceedings in the aforesaid case has already been stayed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also submitted that the suspension
of the petitioner initiated in connection with this case already
stands revoked after undergoing suspension for a period of one
and half years and now the respondent-State cannot take shelter
under the pendency of the aforesaid case having themselves
revoked the suspension of the petitioner. Moreover, no
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
misconduct, whatsoever could be attributed to the petitioner in
relation to his present service since the aforesaid case was
instituted even before the petitioner joined the service. The
learned Counsel has also drawn attention of this Court to an
order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated
11.08.2025 passed in C.W.J.C No.15840 of 2022 titled 'Ranjeet
Kumar Rajak vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.', wherein relying
upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in
Kameshwar Singh vs. Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported as (1995) 2 BLJR 1204, the
departmental proceedings initiated vide memo no. 9173 dated
08.02.2022 under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was quashed on the
ground of double-jeopardy.
18. Secondly, the E.O.U P.S. case No.20 of 2022,
whereunder the petitioner was arrested and as a consequence
thereof was deemed to be suspended, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner already stands
discharged and the aforesaid order of discharge stands affirmed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is emphasized by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court
having not found any material to even frame charges against the
petitioner, had discharged him from the aforesaid case, as such
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
the criminal case no longer remains pending and consequently
the disciplinary proceedings which emanates therefrom also has
no legs to stand.
19. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 appears to
have been initiated against the petitioner only with the sole
motive to keep the petitioner under indefinite suspension and
even the investigation in the aforesaid case has not progressed,
no charge sheet has been submitted despite significant lapse of
time and therefore the petitioner cannot be kept under indefinite
suspension awaiting the conclusion of the criminal trial which
has not even begun.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioner
adverting to the letter no.17796, dated 21.09.2023, which was
relied upon by the respondent-State while issuing the impugned
order of suspension, has submitted that the same letter under
Paragraph 4(iii) also proscribes that in case the joining is
accepted after the Government servant is released from custody,
then he should be paid full salary for the period from the date of
joining to the date on which he is suspended again. Therefore, it
is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent- State on the one hand cannot selectively rely on
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
Paragraph 4(ii) for issuing the impugned order of suspension
and conveniently ignore and violate the paragraph 4(iii) of the
very same executive instructions in the aforesaid letter.
21. Drawing strength from the recommendation
of the State Level Committee, constituted under the Bihar
Litigation Policy, 2011, to revoke the suspension of the
petitioner, it is next submitted that the respondent authorities
have also ignored the decision taken by the aforesaid State Level
Committee and have continued to keep the petitioner under
repeated suspension. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that effectively only one criminal case survives
against the petitioner, that being the alleged disproportionate
assets case and even there no progress has been made. No
charge sheet has been submitted despite lapse of considerable
period of time. It is also stressed by the learned counsel that the
aforementioned alleged disproportionate assets case is totally
based on the documentary evidence and therefore there is no
reason whatsoever preventing the petitioner from assuming
charge as the Dy. S.P.
22. The petitioner had been suspended on two
earlier occasions and the impugned order of suspension is the
third instance of suspension. It is further submitted that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
petitioner stands suspended for a total cumulative period of
about four and a half years. The prolonged and repeated
suspension of the petitioner is akin to punishment and is in
complete violation of the right to dignity as well as right to
speedy trial.
23. The learned counsel adverting to the
administrative instructions contained at memo no.2763, dated
26.02.2014 issued by the General Administration Department,
Government of Bihar, the learned counsel had lastly submitted
that the stipulated time for concluding the disciplinary
proceedings in a time-bound manner has already been fixed by
the respondent-State itself and therefore the same cannot go on
indefinitely. The aforesaid provision dated 26.02.2014 reads
thus:-
foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk dkyca) fu"iknu ,oa mls le;
rkfdZd ifj.kfr rd igq¡pkuk
1---------
2- vr,o fcgkj ljdkjh lsod ¼oxhZdj.k
fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ¼le;≤ ij ;Fkk
la'kksf/kr½ ds çko/kkuksa ds vkyksd esa mi;qZä foHkkxh; ifji=
la[;k 2178 fnukad 28-2-2007 }kjk vuq'kklfud
dkjZokbZ@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds fofHkUu pj.kksa dks iwjk djus ds
fufeÙk fu/kkZfjr le;&lhek lqyHk çlax gsrq ,r}kjk vkidks iqu%
ifjpkfjr fd;k tkrk gS&
fofHkUu pj.k le;&lhek
¼1½ ifjokn@ykaNu dh çkfIr ,d ekg
ds i'pkr~ ykaNu dh LkPpkbZ
dh tk¡p gsrq visf{kr çkjafHkd
dk;Zokgh@Li"Vhdj.k@leqfpr
fu.kZ; vkfnA
¼2½ ;fn vxzsrj vuq'kklfud ,d ekg
dk;Zokgh dk fu.kZ; fy;k tkrk
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
gS rks vkjksi&i= ¼lk{; lfgr½
dk xBuA
¼3½ vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkj }kjk nks ekg
vxzsrj dk;Zokgh dk
fofu'p;@vkjksi&i= lk{;
lfgr vkjksfir ljdkjh lsod
dks Hkstk tkuk@vkjksfir
ljdkjh lsod }kjk viuk
fyf[kr c;ku nsuk@fyf[kr
c;ku ds vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ dk
vfHkys[kuA
¼4½ mä fu;ekoyh ds N% ekg
fu;e&17 ds vuqlkj dk;ZokghZ
lEiUu djus dh vof/kA
¼5½ mä fu;ekoyh ds nks ekg
fu;e&18 ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh
dqy 12 ekg
¼,d o"kZ½
24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India though its
Secretary & Ors. reported as (2015) 7 SCC 291 and State of
Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government (Home) vs.
Promod Kumar, IPS and Anr. reported as (2018) 17 SCC 677.
25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in C.W.J.C 21865 of 2019 titled as 'Suresh Sah vs.
State & Ors,' and the decision of a coordinate Bench of this
Court rendered in the case of Ashwini Kumar vs. State of Bihar
& Ors. reported as 2021 (1) BLJ 515
26. Further the learned counsel has also taken
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
this Court to several decisions of multiple High Courts to draw
strength and substantiate his submissions such as, decision of
High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.14863 of 2016 titled as 'Naru Lal Meghwal vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.' reported as neutral citation 2025:RJ-
JD:19943; decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of
Madras in W.A. No. 68 of 2021 & C.M.P. No. 578 of 2021 titled
as 'The Chairman-cum-M.D., TANGEDCO, NPKRR,
Maaligai & Ors vs. R. Balaji' and the decision of the High
Court of Judicature of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P. (S) No. 2194
of 2020 titled as 'Satya Prakash vs. State of Jharkhand &
Ors.', reported as Neutal Citation 2021:JHHC:10505.
27. Per contra, the respondent-authorities in
their counter affidavit have submitted that so far as the first
criminal case i.e. E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 is concerned,
the same was disclosed by the petitioner at the time of joining
the service, however, from the letter received from the E.O.U
vide letter no.118 dated 18.07.2014, it was informed to the
respondent authorities that a charge sheet has been submitted
against the petitioner on 30.06.2014 and it was also reported that
a raid was conducted at the rented accommodation of the
petitioner where-from several documents were recovered and
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
the cognizance against the petitioner was taken on 11.05.2015.
Therefore, it is submitted by the respondents that considering
the gravity of charges, the petitioner was placed under
suspension under Rule 9(1)(c) of the C.C.A. Rules vide memo
no.2770 dated 08.04.2016 and the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated under Rule 16(1)(a) against him. It is further submitted
that the statements of imputations along with list of documents
were served upon the petitioner on 11.05.2016 under Rule 17(4)
however despite repeated reminders, the petitioner submitted his
written defense/reply only on 19.04.2022. As already noted, the
suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 02.09.2017 by the
appellate authority. The respondent-authorities in its counter
affidavit, replying to the contention regarding the revocation of
the earlier suspension (in connection with E.O.U P.S. Case No.
23 of 2012) by the appellate authority, has submitted that the
aforesaid revocation was merely on procedural grounds and not
on merits.
28. The respondents has next reiterated the facts
around the second and third criminal cases being E.O.U P.S.
Case nos. 20 of 2022 and 30 of 2022. Thereafter, the Inspector
General of Police, Headquarter in compliance of Letter No.
7717 dated 02.08.2022 had sent the memo of charge along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
list of documents and witnesses vide letter no.2782 dated
23.11.2022. After thoroughly examining the materials, vide
memo no.581 dated 12.01.2023, the Department of Home,
Government of Bihar had forwarded the articles of charge,
substance of imputations in support of each article of charge to
the petitioner and he was directed to submit his written defense
within 15 days. A corrigendum was also issued vide resolution
no.3562 dated 17.03.2023 and the same was duly forwarded to
the petitioner.
29. Thereafter, it is submitted by the respondents
that despite multiple reminders and publication in newspapers,
the petitioner had failed to submit his written defense.
Thereafter, the department of Home after examining the
materials available on record, issued the resolution no.3631,
dated 20.03.2023 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner. Subsequently, the proceedings initiated under
resolution no.9173 dated 08.09.2022 and resolution No. 3631
dated 20.03.2023 were transferred to the Chief Inquiry
Commissioner, General Administration Department.
30. Adverting to the orders passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 402 of 2025 and the consequential L.P.A. No. 416 of 2025,
it is submitted by the respondents that in compliance of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
orders passed there-under, the suspension of the petitioner was
revoked vide notification dated 21.05.2025, however
considering the continuity of serious departmental enquiry and
the liberty granted by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 416 of
2025, fresh suspension order dated 23.06.2025 was issued under
Rule 9(1)(a) read with Rule 9(1)(c) of the C.C.A. Rules. It is
further submitted by the respondents that the aforesaid fresh
order of suspension was necessitated by the pendency of major
departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
31. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the suspension is not punitive in character, but
rather a necessary step to ensure fair and transparent inquiry and
judicial interference should be limited to cases of proved mala
fide. Adverting to Rules 9(1)(a) and 9(3)(ii), the learned counsel
for the State has submitted that the respondent authorities have
lawful power to suspend a Government servant during or in
contemplation of a departmental proceeding under Rule 9(1)(a)
and issuance of fresh suspension order after acceptance of
joining under Rule 9(3)(ii) respectively. It is therefore submitted
that the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 was not punitive,
arbitrary or mala fide, but rather in exercise of statutory powers
to ensure that the ongoing departmental proceedings are being
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
conducted fairly and without any likelihood of interference or
prejudice.
32. So far as the decision of the Committee
under the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011 is concerned the
respondent-State has submitted that the assertions made by the
petitioner are purely matters of claim and do not by themselves
confirm any right for automatic revocation of suspension which
needs to be examined strictly in accordance with the applicable
statutory provisions and administrative procedures relating
thereto. Further, the recommendation of the Committee had not
fructified into a final decision by the competent authority.
33. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
respondents have argued that the petitioner accepting the
impugned order by which he was suspended and having
complied with the same joined the assigned headquarters and
therefore, now he cannot turn around and challenge the
directions contained therein since he had accepted the authority
and legal effect of the impugned order under challenge. It is
argued that a litigant can not approbate and reprobate at the
same time. The Division Bench of this Court had preserved and
protected the liberty of the competent authority to pass fresh
orders of suspension and disciplinary exigencies and therefore
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
the petitioner is estopped by conduct from challenging the
impugned order of suspension before this Court. The respondent
state has submitted that judicial interference is not warranted
with suspension orders specially when based on administrative
necessity and not technical defect.
34. Next, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondents that so far as E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 30 of
2022, i.e. the disproportionate assets case is concerned, the same
was registered under sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and during the course of
investigation, the EOU, Patna had sought information with
respect to the personnel statement and statement I to XII of the
petitioner regarding details of his movable and immovable
properties and financial investments in his name or in the name
of others before the date of joining in service vide letter no.
5468 dated 30.04.2025, however the petitioner did not submit
the required information and deliberately lingered the
investigation by seeking more time to furnish the same. Despite
multiple reminders the petitioner has repeatedly failed to submit
the requisite details. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the fact is further fortified and corroborated by
the communication received from the D.I.G., EOU, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
wherein it has been categorically stated that the petitioner has
deliberately withheld the information solely to protract the
investigation. The bald statement made before this Court by the
petitioner claiming that he does not possesses any property is
misleading and the petitioner was nevertheless bound to furnish
a NIL statement in the prescribed format as mandated by the
respondent authorities.
35. Lastly the learned counsel for the
respondents has argued and reiterated that the present impugned
orders have been passed in pursuance of the liberty granted by
the Division Bench of this Court wherein the discretion of the
competent authority was protected and preserved under Rules
9(1)(a) and 9(3)(ii) of the Bihar CCA Rules 2005, and therefore
the respondents had proceeded to pass the impugned order
owing to the pendency of the serious departmental proceedings
against the petitioner.
36. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed a
rejoinder to the counter affidavit and has brought on record the
order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this
Court in C.W.J.C No. 15840 of 2022 whereby the disciplinary
proceedings initiated vide resolution no.9173, dated 08.09.2022
was quashed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
37. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated
that the first two cases being E.O.U. P.S. Case No.23 of 2012
and 20 of 2022 can not form the basis for continued suspension
of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that a false case being
EOU P.S. Case No. 30 of 2022 regarding the disproportionate
assets to the tune of Rs. 63,69,700/- has been instituted without
considering the fact that the petitioner is an Income Tax assessee
since the year 2007-08 and his wife is also an Income Tax
Assessee for a long period of time, having her own business and
the petitioner also has a substantial income from agricultural
sources. Casting doubts on the aforesaid F.I.R, it is submitted
that the informant in the aforesaid case is mentioned as 'reliable
source' which can not inspire confidence. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has also adverted to the policy decision of the
respondent-State contained in letter no.945 dated 24.06.2005
(Annexure P-22), which provides that no proceedings shall be
conducted against a Government servant on the basis of an
anonymous complainant.
38. Rebutting the allegation that the petitioner
had delayed the submission of his response, it is submitted in the
rejoinder that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the memo
no. 581 dated 12.01.2023 by which written submissions were
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
sought from him and the petitioner had demanded documents
vide letter dated 27.02.2023 and reiterated the demand for the
documents vide letter dated 11.04.2023. Thereafter the
respondent authorities vide letter dated 11.05.2023 had stated
that the petitioner shall raise all his grievances before the
Inquiry Officer.
39. The petitioner has thereafter submitted that
the respondent authorities in complete defiance of the circular
dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure-19) have not released the payments
in favour of the petitioner for the period between the date of his
resumption of service/joining after being released from custody
and the date of again being suspended. It is further submitted
that the petitioner who has already suffered a prolonged
suspension can not further be subjected to indefinite suspension
particularly when there is no progress in the disciplinary
proceedings. It is argued that the petitioner has undergone
suspension for over four years on two separate occasions and
there is no material available with the respondents to now
continue the suspension of the petitioner. It is also argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the liberty granted by the
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 416 of 2025 has been
misused by the respondents since the same has not been
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
exercised in accordance with law.
40. It is next submitted that once the Empowered
Committee constituted under the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011
consisting the Chief Secretary for the State of Bihar and other
head of the Departments had taken a decision to revoke the
suspension of the petitioner on reviewing the same on
16.05.2024, the suspension of the petitioner was required to be
revoked. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
under similar circumstances the suspension of one S.D.P.O,
Rajauli, Nawada who was implicated in a trap case, was revoked
by the authorities in view of the decision of the Empowered
Committee. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have acted
discriminatorily in not revoking the suspension in the case of the
petitioner on the basis of the report of the aforesaid Committee
while choosing to revoke the suspension in respect of another
Government servant, who was trapped.
41. It is lastly submitted by the petitioner in the
rejoinder that merely because the respondent-State had the
power to suspend a Government servant would not mean that
the impugned order of suspension would ipso facto be deemed
to be valid and lawful. It is argued by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
petitioner that despite the petitioner having been suspended for a
long period, the respondents have not proceeded any further in
the disciplinary proceeding and even no witness has been
examined by them and therefore, keeping the petitioner under
continued and prolong suspension is manifestly illegal and
arbitrary. It is for the department to prove the charges against the
petitioner in a departmental proceeding. In the present case,
neither the department nor the prosecution in the criminal cases
has been able to prove anything against the petitioner for more
than thee years. The aforesaid case is absolutely false based on
anonymous information. The learned counsel submits that the
principle of approbate and reprobate has no application in the
facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner being a
Government servant was required and duty bound to submit his
joining after he was suspended. This did not take away his right
to challenge the suspension. The respondent authorities have
blatantly violated the interim order dated 04.07.2025 passed in
the present case, for which they are liable to face contempt
proceeding.
42. The petitioner has preferred an Interlocutory
Application No.01 of 2025 for directing the respondent
authorities to make payment of subsistence allowance to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
petitioner from the month of May, 2025 to 04.07.2025 and full
salary thereafter. The respondents have filed a reply to the
aforesaid application and have submitted that the respondent
State has already preferred L.P.A. No. 878 of 2025 against the
order dated 20.08.2025 passed in the present writ petition and an
interlocutory application therein for stay against the interim
order dated 04.07.2025.
43. I have considered the submissions advanced
by the parties and perused the materials available on record.
44. The petitioner, who has joined the Bihar
Police Service, was suspended owing to the pendency of
criminal cases against him. The disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner directly emanates and is entirely
based on the three criminal cases that were or are pending
against him.
45. The first criminal case i.e. Economic
Offences Unit P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 predates the joining of
the petitioner into the services of the State of Bihar. During the
relevant point in time, the petitioner was working as an Assistant
Manager at the Central Bank of India, Shilong, Meghalaya.
Admittedly the petitioner had duly disclosed this fact while
joining his present service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
dated 26.11.2018 passed in Transfer Petition (Cr.) No. 553 of
2018 titled 'Ranjeet Kumar Rajak vs State of Bihar and Ors.'
had stayed the further proceedings arising out of the aforesaid
E.O.U. P.S. Case 23 of 2012, till further orders. The petitioner
was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings
which under appeal was revoked by the appellate authority.
During this intervening time, the petitioner was under
suspension for about one and half years.
46. In the second criminal case, E.O.U. P.S. Case
No.20 of 2022, the petitioner was arrested and therefore deemed
to be suspended. Subsequently, the petitioner was enlarged on
bail in the aforesaid criminal case and thereafter he joined his
services. In the aforesaid criminal case, the petitioner was
discharged by the trial court and the same has been affirmed by
a coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the aforesaid
criminal case is no longer pending against the petitioner. Though
his suspension was revoked only in pursuance of the directions
passed in the earlier round of litigation by the coordinate Bench
and the Division Bench. However, the petitioner was suspended
once again vide the impugned order.
47. The respondents have justified and supported
the re-suspension of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
serious disciplinary proceedings against him.
48. The repeated and prolonged suspension of a
Government servant has been deprecated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The rationale behind suspension of the
Government servant is to ensure the fairness and integrity of the
disciplinary proceedings and the same is not punitive in nature.
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its
Secretary & Anr. reported as (2015) 7 SCC 291 had held as
under:-
"11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of
charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in
nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it
is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is
not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously
available on the record, this would render it
punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary
proceedings invariably commence with delay, are
plagued with procrastination prior and post the
drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and
eventually culminate after even longer delay.
12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal
thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not
the exception that they ought to be. The suspended
person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the
scorn of society and the derision of his department,
has to endure this excruciation even before he is
formally charged with some misdemeanour,
indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an
inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come
to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence
or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an
accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the
sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution
does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a
speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the
presumption of innocence to the accused. But we
must remember that both these factors are legal
ground norms, are inextricable tenets of Common
Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna
Carta of 1215, which assures that -- "We will sell to
no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either
justice or right." In similar vein the Sixth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America guarantees that in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial.
13. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948 assures that:
"12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his
honour and reputation. Everyone has the
right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks."
14. More recently, the European Convention on Human
Rights in Article 6(1) promises that:
"6. (1) in the determination of his civil rights
and obligations or of any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time...."
and in its second sub-article that:
"6. (2) Everyone charged with a criminal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
offence shall be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law."
xxxxxxx
20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an
accused could be detained for continuous and
consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial
scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has
the effect of circumscribing the power of the
Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused
person beyond a period of 90 days where the
investigation relates to an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period
of 60 days where the investigation relates to any
other offence. Drawing support from the
observations contained of the Division Bench in
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [(1986) 4 SCC
481 and more so of the Constitution Bench in
Antulay (1992) 1 SCC 225, we are spurred to
extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to
Section 167(2) Cr.PC, 1973 to moderate suspension
orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary
enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament
considered it necessary that a person be released
from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even
though accused of commission of the most heinous
crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be
continued after the expiry of the similar period
especially when a memorandum of charges /
charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended
person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2)
CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and
preservation of human dignity as well as the right to
a speedy trial should also be placed on the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
pedestal.
21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a
suspension order should not extend beyond three
months if within this period the memorandum of
charges/charge-sheet is not served on the
delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum
of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order
must be passed for the extension of the suspension.
As in the case in hand, the Government is free to
transfer the person concerned to any department in
any of its offices within or outside the State so as to
sever any local or personal contact that he may
have and which he may misuse for obstructing the
investigation against him. The Government may
also prohibit him from contacting any person, or
handling records and documents till the stage of his
having to prepare his defence. We think this will
adequately safeguard the universally recognised
principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy
trial and shall also preserve the interest of the
Government in the prosecution. We recognise that
the previous Constitution Benches have been
reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of
delay, and to set time-limits to their duration.
However, the imposition of a limit on the period of
suspension has not been discussed in prior case law,
and would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance
Commission that pending a criminal investigation,
departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance
stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by
us." (emphasis supplied).
50. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of T.N. vs. Promod Kumar, IPS & Anr.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
reported as (2018) 17 SCC 677 had held as under:-
Suspension
"24. The first respondent was placed under deemed
suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services
Rules for being in custody for a period of more than
48 hours. Periodic reviews were conducted for his
continuance under suspension. The
recommendations of the Review Committees did not
favour his reinstatement due to which he is still
under suspension. Mr P. Chidambaram, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent
fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis
that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be
any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of
the State Government for continuing the first
respondent under suspension pending criminal trial.
There is no doubt that the allegations made against
the first respondent are serious in nature. However,
the point is whether the continued suspension of the
first respondent for a prolonged period is justified.
25. The first respondent has been under suspension for
more than six years. While releasing the first
respondent on bail, liberty was given to the
investigating agency to approach the Court in case
he indulged in tampering with the evidence.
Admittedly, no complaint is made by CBI in that
regard. Even now the appellant has no case that
there is any specific instance of any attempt by the
first respondent to tamper with evidence.
26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held
on 27-6-2016, it was mentioned that the first
respondent is capable of exerting pressure and
influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of
the first respondent misusing office if he is reinstated
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
as Inspector General of Police. Only on the basis of
the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, the
Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered
extension of the period of suspension for a further
period of 180 days beyond 9-7-2016 vide order
dated 6-7-2016.
27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of
India (2015) 7 SCC 291 has frowned upon the
practice of protracted suspension and held that
suspension must necessarily be for a short
duration. On the basis of the material on record,
we are convinced that no useful purpose would be
served by continuing the first respondent under
suspension any longer and that his reinstatement
would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the
observation of the High Court that the appellant
State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent
in a non-sensitive post." (emphasis supplied)
51. In the case of State of Orissa vs. Bimal
Kumar Mohanty, reported as 1994 SCC (4) 126, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that suspension is not a punishment, but
can only be used for forbidding or disabling an employee to
discharge the duties of office or post held by him in order to
prevent/influence the disciplinary proceeding. The suspension
must also be reviewed periodically and can not be continued
indefinitely without reasonable justification.
52. This Court has noted the decision of the High
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
14863 of 2016 titled 'Naru Lal Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
and Anr.' reported as Neutral Citation 2025 : RJ-JD:1993,
wherein general principles have been enunciated as under:-
"28. In light of the above discussions and Supreme Court
judgments, it is deemed appropriate that following
guidelines are culled out to be borne in mind by the
competent authority / review committee, as the case
may be, before ordering suspension, for its further
continuation or revocation thereof depending upon
case to case.
Guidelines for Suspension of Government Servants
Due to Criminal Proceedings:
I. General Principles - Suspension due to criminal
proceedings should be based on objective
evaluation, not mere allegations. Innocence is
presumed until proven guilty-suspension should not
serve as punishment. Suspension must serve the
public interest; an FIR alone isn't sufficient ground.
Likewise grant of prosecution sanction also must be
not, per se, be a mechanical reason to suspend, but
there must be a meeting of mind.
II. Grounds for Suspension- Suspension may be
justified if charges involve corruption, financial
misconduct, security threats, or moral turpitude.
Continued service may hinder investigation or trial.
The employee could influence witnesses or tamper
with evidence. The offense undermines public trust
in the Institution,
III. Time Limits on Suspension- if no charge sheet is
filed by the prosecution in trial court within 3
months, suspension shall not be extended unless
special reasons exist as are recorded by the
competent authority and conveyed to the delinquent
official. In case charge sheet is filed in trial court
within 3 months of suspension, then the period of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
suspension should normally not exceed 2 years
unless trial is close to completion and it is
specifically so noted on the administrative file by the
competent authority and such reasons are conveyed
in writing to the suspended official. If criminal trial
is delayed and exceeds 3 years, the competent
authority must consider alternatives like transfer to
a non-sensitive post, by revoking suspension.
Alternatively, specific reasons be again recorded in
writing justifying further continuation of suspension
and same be conveyed to the suspended government
servant.
IV. Periodic Review - Suspension must be reviewed
every 4 months by the review committee and/or the
competent authority under Rule 13 (5) of the CCA
Rules, 1958. Review must assess trial progress,
continued need for suspension, and possible
alternatives. Continuation must be justified with
written reasons.
V. Alternatives to Indefinite Suspension-Instead of
prolonged suspension, the competent authority must
consider Transfer to a non-sensitive role as per
Supreme Court Judgment in Ajay Chaudhary vs.
UOI.
VI. Distinction between Serious vs. Minor Offenses -
Minor offenses (e.g., typically triable by Magistrates
but not all) don't justify suspension. However,
serious offenses (e.g., Sessions trials or other such
crimes against society or corruption, fraud,
harassment etc.) may require immediate action. The
decision to suspend must reflect the nature and
impact of the offense."
53. It is abundantly clear from the aforequoted
judgments that continued and repeated suspension of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
petitioner is impermissible. Upon perusal of the impugned order
by which the petitioner was again suspended, this Court finds
that the respondent authorities have failed to make out any
justifiable reason for keeping the petitioner under such
continued and repeated suspension besides the bald statement
that there have been serious disciplinary proceedings pending
against the petitioner, more-so when no progress is there in the
aforesaid disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have
themselves flouted the stipulated time frame set for concluding
these proceedings. They have also failed to carry out periodic
review/assessment of the suspension which is in complete
violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra).
54. The power to suspend is inherent in the
Government, however, the exercise of such power is not
unfettered and can not be exercised in an unreasonable and
arbitrary manner. The suspension is an instrument to ensure
fairness and propriety of the disciplinary proceedings, but a
prolonged, repeated and indefinite suspension absorbs punitive
character. Suspension which is intended to be an interim
measure can not be permitted to become de-facto penalty /
punishment that too, sans the guilt even being established.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
55. In the present case, the respondent authority
while passing the impugned order, by which the petitioner was
again put under suspension, also fails to bring out any cogent or
compelling reasons besides the pendency of the disciplinary
proceedings for continuing the said suspension despite the fact
that the petitioner having already suffered a suspension for
cumulatively over four and a half years and presently for about
three years. As already noted, in the most recent instance, there
has not been any periodic review of the suspension of the
petitioner.
56. It is therefore in the considered opinion of
this Court that in the interest of justice the suspension of the
petitioner can not be prolonged indefinitely, particularly without
providing specific reasons for such repeated suspension. At the
cost of repetition, out of the three criminal cases, which form the
basis for the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner stands
discharged in one case and in another case the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had stayed the proceedings whereas in the third case the
investigation is still at a nascent stage.
57. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the
impugned order contained in memo no.7757 dated 23.06.2025,
by which the petitioner has again been put under suspension, is
Patna High Court CWJC No.10369 of 2025 dt.11-11-2025
not sustainable and is accordingly, quashed and set aside. The
respondents are hereby directed to issue consequential orders
within two weeks from today.
58. This Court is conscious of the fact that the
disciplinary proceeding is still pending against the petitioner. It
is needless to state that the pending and surviving disciplinary
proceeding(s) against the petitioner shall be completed in
accordance with law subject to the outcome of the pending
Letters Patent Appeals.
59. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits including the arrears of salary, after
deducting the amount already paid, and the same shall be paid to
the petitioner in accordance with law.
60. Pending Interlocutory Applications are
disposed of.
61. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid
terms.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 17.10.2025
Uploading Date 12.11.2025
Transmission Date
