2026:JHHC:12331 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 5260 of 2025 --------- Krishna Chandra Choudhary aged about 58 years son of Late Satya Narayan Choudhary, at present residing at Arjun Villa Lalpokhra Road, Grant Estate Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District Dumka (Jharkhand). ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, having its office at Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Deputy Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs, having its office at Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr.Advocate Mr. Krishna Shankar, Advocate Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Kumar, A.C. to Sr.S.C.-I --------- 06/Dated:-27.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Notification issued vide Memo No.1521 dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure-3) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been suspended in complete misinterpretation of Rule 9(1) (a) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred as Rules, 2016). (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and post him suitably with immediate effect. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Resolution alongwith its annexures passed vide Memo No.1984 dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure-4) by which a departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charges mainly for which one Kotwali P.S. Case No.91 of 2025 has already been lodged, and other charges on the ground that the said departmental proceeding has been initiated in complete violation of Rule 17 of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016. 3. Though the petitioner has prayed for several reliefs, but Ld. Sr. Counsel confines his argument only on the question 2026:JHHC:12331 2 that when there is a circular of the State of Jharkhand giving guidelines about how to proceed and conclude departmental proceeding as well as there is a rule governing the employees known as Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2016) that if at all the respondent wishes to extend the period of suspension of any delinquent, they must pass an order under Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2016. 4. Accordingly, Ld. Sr. 4. Accordingly, Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of with a condition that if within a short period, the proceeding is not concluded, then as per the Rule 9(6) (c) of the Rules, 2016 and also the resolution dated 26.12.2012 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, the suspension should be revoked. He fairly submits that at present, he is only on the issue of revocation of suspension and not on the merits of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he would seek instruction as to whether the final order has been passed. He further does not dispute that there is Rule 9(1) (c) of the Rules, 2016 which states that the authorities are having the power to pass appropriate order on the point of suspension, if the inquiry is not completed within the stipulated time. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that vide Notification No. 725 dated 13.02.1997, the petitioner was appointed in the Bihar Agriculture Service in Category-8 (Weights Measure and Marketing) Class-II at Rs. 2200-4000. After 2026:JHHC:12331 3 bifurcation, the petitioner was allotted posting in Jharkhand. Thereafter, an F.I.R. being Kotwali P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025 under Section 319(2)/318(4)/356(2) B.N.S., 2023 was lodged on 11.04.2025 for the charges with respect to personation for personal interests. 7. Thereafter, the suspension order was issued and signed by the Deputy Secretary in the light of Rule 9(1)(a) on 11.06.2025, even though no disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. Further, Memo No.1984 dated 25.07.2025 containing the charge-sheet by which disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner has been initiated as per Rule 17(2). Charges 1, 2, 3 were related to the personation, as mentioned in the F.I.R. Charges 4, 5, 6 were related to violation of Rule 152 of Jharkhand Service Code and Rule 3.3 of Secretariat Instructions. 8. As per Rule 17(4), written statement is supposed to be submitted to the disciplinary authority and then as per Rule 17(5) (a), in cases where charges have not been admitted, the disciplinary authority may appoint an enquiry officer. 9. Further, in this case, the written statement is ordered to be submitted to the enquiry officer itself even before contemplation by the disciplinary authority. Also, it appears that the departmental proceedings and Criminal Proceedings are based on similar set of charges and facts. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was suspended on 11.06.2025. As per the own resolution of the respondent- Department issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, by which they have given a guideline 2026:JHHC:12331 4 whereby 105 days have been stipulated by their own department to conclude the proceeding. 11. Further, from Rule 9(6) of the Rules, 2016, it is evident that the authorities have power to extend the period of suspension in certain circumstances; however, in the instant case, there is no document on record to suggest that any order with regard to extension of suspension has been passed. 12. Accordingly, this Court feels it proper to dispose of this writ application with a direction to the respondents that if the departmental proceeding is not concluded within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order; then the suspension shall be revoked automatically on the completion of the stipulated period. 13. It is clarified that this case/order will not prejudice the case of either of the parties with regard to departmental proceeding. 14. It is also clarified that this Court has not gone on the charges and only confines its order on the question of revocation of suspension because the same has neither been revoked; nor the proceeding has been concluded, within the stipulated time. 15. Accordingly, the instant writ application is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 27, 2026 vikas/- uploaded 20/05/2026