NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ application was initially appointed as a temporary typist on 20th January, 1958 in the Department of Agriculture and was posted in the office of the Regional Director, Agricultural Research Institute, Patna. Later, he was appointed to the post of Inspector, Weights and Measures, in the year 1906. In the year 1968, he was posted at Sasaram Sub-division. On 26-7-1968 on the basis of a first information report lodged against the petitioner alleging therein that he has taken a bribe of Rs. 300/-, a case under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered by the police. The petitioner was taken in custody on 26-7-1968 itself in connection with the aforesaid case. However, he was released on bail on 20-8-1968. According to the petitioner, after being released from custody, he joined his duties on 21-8-1968. An order dated 1-8-1968 issued under the signature of the Chief Inspector, Weights and Measures, Bihar suspending the petitioner with effect from 26-7-1968, under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Service Code) was served on the petitioner on 30-8-1968. A copy of that order is annexure-4 to the writ application. The petitioner filed representations before the authorities concerned for withdrawing the order of suspension. Copies of such representations are annexures 5 to 7 of the writ application. In those representations a grievance was made that in the eye of law the petitioner was not under suspension in view of the fact that he had already been released on bail. It is his case that in spite of requests being made, he was not allowed to join. Ultimately, he filed the present writ application on 23-12-1975 for quashing the aforesaid order dated 1-8-1968 (annexure-4 to the writ application).

This writ application was admitted by this Court on 10-3-1976. As one of the grievances made in the writ application was that since there was no order under R. 100 of the said Service Code, the petitioner will not be deemed to be under suspension after his release from jail, at the time of admission, this Court passed an order saying that the admission of the application, however, will not be construed as a bar to the Government passing appropriate orders in the case in accordance with the rules. It is the admitted position that on 13-4-1976 an order under R. 100 of the said Service Code was passed by the Director of Agriculture, Bihar purporting to suspend the petitioner with effect from the date on which he was released on bail. According to the petitioner, both the aforesaid orders are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed by this Court.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents setting out the circumstances under which the aforesaid two orders, dated 1-8-1968 and 13-4-1976, have been passed putting the petitioner under suspension. A copy of the order dated 13-4-1976 is annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner was allowed to amend the prayer portion of the writ application and to challenge the validity of this order dated 13-4-1976 (annexure-A to the counter-affidavit) passed during the pendency of the writ application.

3. Mr. Radha Raman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that any order passed under R. 99 of the Service Code cannot remain in force after the person concerned is released from custody, and as in the instant case, the petitioner was admittedly released from custody on 20-8-1968, the order dated 1-8-1968 will be deemed to have spent its force on that date.

4. The relevant portion of R. 99 of the Service Code is as follows:

"A servant of Government against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention should be considered as under suspens