JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for quashing the order contained in memo no. 620 dated 16.7.2019 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj in exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), for commanding the respondents to immediately vacate the suspension order of the petitioner and to post him at an appropriate place and for other reliefs to which he is found entitled. By way of an amendment petition which was allowed on 29.9.2020, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 issued under the signature of the Circle Officer, Barauli.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that while he was posted as a Revenue Karamchari in Circle Office at Manjha in the district of Gopalganj, on the basis of a viral video wherein the petitioner was seen taking illegal gratification for mutation of a land, by order contained in memo no.620 dated 16.7.2019 issued under the signature of the District Magistrate, Gopalganj, he was placed under suspension. The Circle Officer, Barauli was directed to frame charges under Prapatra 'ka' and to make the same available along with the evidence relied upon, to the District Revenue Branch, Gopalganj within three days. The petitioner was relieved by order dated 19.7.2019 by the Circle Officer, Manjha directing him to join the headquarter as fixed in the order dated 16.7.2019.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having been suspended on 16.7.2019, chargesheet should have been framed within three months from the date of issuance of suspension order i.e. by 16.10.2019. It is submitted that no order was passed renewing the order of suspension of the petitioner. Even if the said order had been passed, nevertheless, chargesheet was still required to be framed within further period of four months which ended on 16.2.2020 and thus in any case of the matter the order of suspension of the petitioner stood automatically revoked on 16.2.2020, if not on 16.10.2019 itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions relies on the judgment in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Gyan Kumar Ram [2009 (4) PUR 272 (FB)] and more particularly paragraph no.20 thereof. It is further case of the petitioner that in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Gyan Kumar Ram (supra) the order of suspension of the petitioner stood revoked on 16.2.2020 even without passing of any formal order by the respondent authorities. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on 29.2.2020. Thus at the time of his retirement the petitioner was neither under suspension nor was any departmental proceeding pending against him. It was much later on 1.7.2020 that charges were framed under Prapatra 'ka' and the same was sent along with letter contained in memo no.541 dated 1.7.2020 by the Circle Officer, Barauli to the District Magistrate, Gopalganj. It is submitted that no copy of the same was served on the petitioner who came to know about the same only after it was brought on record in the instant case as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of respondent nos.3 to 5. It is further submitted that the chargesheet is in teeth of Rule 17(3) of the Rules having been issued by the Circle Officer who not being the appointing authority is not empowered to issue the charge memo. The same is also in violation of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 as the departmental proceeding has been initiated without obtaining the sanction by the State Government. Thus it is prayed that the order of suspension as contained in order dated 16.7.2019 be quashed, for payment of consequential benefits including the arrears of salary and for quashing the letter contained in memo no.541