Failure to frame a charge-sheet within three months entitles the suspended employee to seek reinstatement and mandates revocation upon application.

The petitioner, a government employee, challenged Memo No. 999 dated 2 April 2026, issued by the Incharge Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Jehanabad, placing him under suspension pursuant to the direction of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

The petitioner contended that, despite the expiry of 90 days from the suspension order, no charge-sheet had been framed or served upon him, and no order renewing the suspension had been passed with reasons recorded in writing.

He therefore submitted a representation dated 15 July 2026 before the Chief Medical Officer seeking revocation of the suspension under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, but the representation remained undecided.

The State sought a short adjournment to obtain instructions regarding the factual position.

Whether, upon failure to frame and serve a charge-sheet within three months of the suspension order, the petitioner was entitled to seek revocation of his suspension under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005

Whether the competent authority was required to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation for revocation in accordance with Rule 9(7) and the Full Bench decision in State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram

The Court applied Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, under which a charge-sheet must ordinarily be framed within three months of the suspension order; if this is not done, the suspension is liable to be revoked unless the competent authority renews it for a further period of four months by recording reasons in writing for the delay.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Bihar v. Gyan Kumar Ram, 2009 (4) PLJR 272, particularly paragraph 19, which held that failure to frame a charge-sheet within three months gives the suspended employee a right to seek reinstatement. Once that right is exercised by an appropriate application before the competent authority or a court, the suspension is required to be revoked; however, the right may be defeated if the employee does not exercise it before the charge-sheet is framed or the suspension is validly renewed for recorded reasons.

The Court noted that the suspension order was issued on 2 April 2026 and that, according to the petitioner’s pleadings, no charge-sheet had been framed or served even after the expiry of 90 days.

The petitioner had also exercised his right to seek reinstatement by filing a representation dated 15 July 2026, which remained pending.

Applying Rule 9(7) and the principle stated in Gyan Kumar Ram, the Court held that the pending representation required consideration in light of the statutory mandate and the Full Bench ruling.

Rather than directly ordering reinstatement, the Court directed the competent authority to decide the representation in accordance with law.

The Court did not itself revoke the suspension or order reinstatement; it required the competent authority to make a decision consistent with the applicable statutory rule and precedent.