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
21.09.2023issued 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for quashing and setting aside Memo No.6288 dated 21.05.2025 to the extent to which the suspension of the petitioner was revoked w.e.f. date of issuance of order instead of revoking the suspension w.e.f. 15.09.2022 as deemed suspension of the petitioner from the date of his detention was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 3/44
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 4/44 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 5/44 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 6/44 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 7/44 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 8/44
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 9/44 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 10/44 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 11/44 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 12/44 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 13/44
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 14/44 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 15/44 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 16/44 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 17/44 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 18/44 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 19/44 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 20/44 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 21/44 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 22/44 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 23/44 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 24/44 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 25/44 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 26/44 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 27/44 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 28/44
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 29/44 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 30/44 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 31/44 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 32/44 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 33/44 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 34/44 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 35/44 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 36/44 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 37/44 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 38/44 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 39/44 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 40/44 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 41/44 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 42/44 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 43/44
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 44/44 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