Prolonged suspension without a charge-sheet warrants statutory review under Rule 9(7) of the Bihar CCA Rules.

The petitioner challenged Memo No. 38 dated 2 December 2024, by which she was placed under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of departmental proceedings, pursuant to Resolution No. 6 dated 29 November 2024 of the Shiksha Samiti and Letter No. 3210 dated 4 November 2024 issued by the District Programme Officer, Establishment, Khagaria.

The petitioner contended that, although more than one year and nine months had elapsed from the date of suspension, no charge memo had been framed.

The State raised a preliminary objection that the suspension order was appealable under Rule 23 of the 2005 Rules and that the petitioner should first pursue the statutory remedy.

Whether the writ petition challenging the suspension order was maintainable when an appellate remedy was available under Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005?

Whether the petitioner’s continued suspension, without framing of a charge memo within the period contemplated under Rule 9(7) of the 2005 Rules, required consideration by the competent authority?

Whether the petitioner should be directed to approach the Director, Primary Education, by way of an appropriate application or appeal?

The Court applied Rule 9(7) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, under which charges must ordinarily be framed within three months of the suspension order; otherwise, suspension is liable to be revoked unless the authority renews it for a further period of four months by recording reasons in writing for the delay.

The Court also considered Rule 23 of the 2005 Rules, which provides an appellate remedy against an order of suspension.

It further reiterated the principle that prolonged and indefinite suspension causes prejudice and social stigma and that suspension is only an interim administrative safeguard, not a punishment.

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained under suspension for more than one year and nine months without a charge memo being framed, raising a prima facie issue under Rule 9(7).

However, in view of the State’s objection that the suspension order was appealable under Rule 23, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioner to first invoke the statutory remedy before the Director, Primary Education.

Rather than adjudicating the validity of the suspension directly, the Court directed the competent authority to examine the petitioner’s grievance in light of Rule 9(7), the prolonged nature of the suspension, and any other grounds raised by her.

The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application or appeal before the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, within two weeks.

The Director was directed to consider and decide the application within four weeks of its filing, specifically keeping in view Rule 9(7) of the 2005 Rules and the principle that prolonged, indefinite suspension is impermissible as suspension is merely an interim administrative safeguard.