Initially, the petitioner came to this Court challenging order dated 05.10.2016 by which he was placed under suspension. During the pendency of the writ petition another order of suspension dated 18.11.2016 was passed, for challenging which the petitioner filed I.A. No. 432 of 2017 which was allowed by an order dated 18.01.2017. Thus, orders dated 05.10.2016 and 18.11.2016, both are under challenge in the present proceeding.

2. Briefly stated, on 17.09.2016 the petitioner was taken into custody in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 160 of 2011 which was registered for offences under Section 409/420 I.P.C. He was released on bail on 28.09.2016. He asserts that he reported for joining duty on 29.09.2016 and by letter dated 03.10.2016 the Director, Soil Conservation forwarded his letter to the Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Department. A formal order of suspension was issued on 05.10.2016 placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 17.09.2016 under Rule 9(2)(a) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred as 2016 Rules) read with Rule 99 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. As noticed above, subsequently, order dated 18.11.2016 has been issued under Rule 9(6)(a) & (b) of 2016 Rules read with Rule 100 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001.

3. Referring to Rule 9(3)(ii) of 2016 Rules, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that without issuing a formal order accepting the joining of the petitioner, order dated 18.11.2016 under Rule 9(6)(a) & (b) cannot be passed. It is contended that once the petitioner was released from judicial custody his deemed suspension shall be deemed to have ended, when the petitioner reported for joining on 29.09.2016 and the matter was brought to the notice of the Secretary by the Director, Soil Conservation by letter dated 03.10.2016. It is further contended that denial of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension violates the statutory right of the petitioner and on the pretext of registration of a criminal case an employee cannot be put under suspension for an indefinite period. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions in; (i) “Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Another” reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, (ii) “Anwarun Nisha Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar and Others” reported in (2002) 6 SCC 703, and (iii) “K. Sukhendar Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Another” reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257.

4. In the counteraffidavit, the respondents have pleaded that after the petitioner was transferred from Koderma to Seraikela as Subdivisional Agriculture Officer he did not hand over charge of District Agriculture Officer (he was made incharge DAO) to the new incumbent namely, Kalipad Mahto till 14.10.2009. The petitioner was to supervise work of construction of Tropical Polly Houses under the National Agriculture Development Project, for which he selected one M/s Gantech Farms for construction of Polly Houses. The petitioner released 95% of the estimated cost to the said farm and made advance payment after his transfer order was issued on 30.09.2009 and even after handing over charge he made payment to the said firm by signing a cheque on 22.10.2009. After an enquiry into construction by M/s Gantech Farm, when illegalities were detected a criminal case was registered vide Koderma P.S. No. 160 of 2011 against the petitioner. It is pleaded that by resolution dated 18.05.2016 the competent authority has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner for irregularities committed under different plans during 200506 to 200809.

5. Mr. Shadab Bin Haque, the learned State counsel supporting the impugned order dated 18.11.2016, submits that order dated 05.10.2016 has been passed in exercise of power under Rule 9(2)(a) of 2016 Rules read with Rule 99 of Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 whereas, order dated 18.11.2016 has b