Sandeep Kumar, J.

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 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 21.09.2023 issued 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for quashing and setting aside Memo No.6288 dated 21.05.2025 to the extent to which the suspension of the petitioner was revoked w.e.f. date of issuance of order instead of revoking the suspension w.e.f. 15.09.2022 as deemed suspension of the petitioner from the date of his detention was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.”

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 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 coaccused. 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