P.K.Misra, J.

1. C.W.J.C No. 1562 of 2009 has been filed for quashing an order of suspension mainly on the ground that the charge-sheet was not framed within the period of three months as contemplated in Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (the Rules, for brevity). The petitioner, by placing reliance upon the Division Bench decision in Chandra Sekhar Prasad vs. State of Bihar [2008(1) PLJR 731], contended that an order of suspension passed in contemplation of the departmental proceeding cannot continue beyond three months unless charge is framed within the said period or there is an extension of the order of suspension which is to be recorded in writing. The State Government, on the other hand, placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision dated 6.8.2008 in L.P.A. No. 459 of 2008 in the case of Jang Bahadur Singh vs. State of Bihar and Others [since then reported in 2008(4) PLJR 307]. Since the learned Single Judge found that there was an apparent conflict between the two Division Bench decisions, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for consideration. The Division Bench, by its order dated 19.3.2009, noticing the conflict between the two decisions, referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. While doing so, the Division Bench further directed that the proceedings should be completed within three months and if the proceedings are not completed within the said three months, then the suspension of the petitioner shall be revoked. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that in fact the order of suspension was subsequently revoked on account of the fact that the proceedings could not be completed within three months. Therefore, for all practical purposes, C.W.J.C No. 1562 of 2009 has become infructuous, in the sense that the order of suspension. which was being impugned, is no longer in existence. Be that as it may, since the matter was referred to a larger Bench, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the State have made their submissions on the main point of reference viz. relating to the interpretation of Rule 9(7) of the Rules and the proviso thereof.

2. L.P.A. No. 778 of 2009, which is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 18180 of 2008 quashing an order of suspension on the ground that the charge-sheet had not been framed within the stipulated period of 90 days, was also referred to a larger Bench by order dated 10.9.2009 on account of the apparent conflict between the two decisions reported in Chandra Sekhar Prasads case (supra) and Jang Bahadur Singhs case (supra), In other words, in both the matters the basic question being the same, they were heard together and the counsel for the parties have made their submissions.

3. Before considering the specific provision contained in the Rules, we feel it appropriate to notice the decision of the Supreme Court, relating to the power and effect of suspension of a Government servant, in R.P Kapur vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 1964 SC 787). The Supreme Court observed:

"(10)..............The general law on the subject of suspension has been laid down by this Court in two cases, namely, Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi vs. Hotel Workers Union, (1960)1 SCR 476: (AIR 1959 SC 1342) and T. Cajee vs. U. Jormanik Siem, (1961)1 SCR 750: (AIR 1961 SC 276). These two cases lay down that it is well settled that under the ordinary law of master and servant the power to suspend the servant without pay could not be implied as a term in an ordinary contract of service between the master and the servant but must arise either from an express term in the contract itself or a statutory provision governing such contract. It was further held that an order of interim suspension could be passed against an employee while inquiry was pending into his conduct even though there was no specific pro