The employer has the right to suspend an employee, and the departmental proceeding must be concluded within a reasonable time.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Government of Bihar when his service was placed under the disposal of Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad by a notification issued by PHED vide Memo No. 489 dated 26.06.2017. The Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad, it has been stated, has since merged in Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (BUIDCO). The petitioner, upon merger of Parishad with BUIDCO was posted as Executive Engineer, New Capital Division, Patna with additional charge of Beur-Mithapur Zone. Certain other zones were also placed under the petitioner’s jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner, it appears, was subsequently repatriated to his parent department. On the allegation of dereliction in discharge of his official duties and failure on his part to apprise BUIDCO about maintenance of sump houses under his jurisdiction, he has been put under suspension in exercise of power under Rule 9(1)(a) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceeding by a notification issued vide Memo No. 367 dated 14.02.2020, under the signature of Joint Secretary, PHED under the orders of the Governor of Bihar.

3. The said order of suspension has been challenged in the present writ application. From the records, it appears that soon after the impugned order was passed on 14.02.2020, the petitioner filed the present writ application, inasmuch as, the date when the affidavit was sworn has been mentioned as 18.02.2020. This application was registered on 26.05.2020.

4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner from which it appears that charges have been framed against the petitioner on 19.05.2020. He has been supplied the substance of imputations of misconduct, statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the article of charge, list of documents by which the article of charge is proposed to be sustained and the list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. The said charge-sheet has been brought on record by way of Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. On perusal of Annexure-10 it appears that the order of suspension dated 14.02.2020 was renewed by an order dated 11.05.2020, as contemplated under sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules.

5. From the pleadings on record and submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that in the main writ application the petitioner has questioned the legality of the impugned order on the ground that the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction and that it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-10 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that framing of charge against the petitioner being not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules, the same cannot be said to be framing of charge within the meaning of Rule 9(7) of the Rules. According to him, since the charge-sheet, within the meaning of the provisions of the Rules, cannot be said to have been framed within three months from the date of issue of order of suspension and even during the extended period of suspension after renewal, the impugned order of suspension stands revoked by operation of the proviso to sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 of the Rules. He has further submitted that the charge has been framed by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar which is not the petitioner’s parent department and, therefore, the framing of charge-sheet itself is incompetent and so is the continuance of the effect of the order of suspension. He has relied on Full Bench decision of this Court in case of State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram (Nandlal Baitha vs. T