Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14116 of 2016 =========================================================== Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Srivastava, Son of Late Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of Village - Damodarpur, P.S. - Malahi, District - East Champaran at Motihari. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director in Chief, Health Services Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Regional Deputy Director, Tirhut Commissionary, Muzaffarpur.

4. The Civil Surgeon, East Chamaparan at Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nagendra Pd. Yadav, SC-23 Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, AC to SC-23.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-05-2017 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned Assisting Counsel to Standing Counsel No.23 for the State. Mr. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly admits that the petitioner has superannuated which renders the issue academic for the present. He further submits that though the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner but it was not concluded until the retirement of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

While the writ petition was filed for twin reliefs i.e. for quashing the suspension order as well as the departmental

Patna High Court CWJC No.14116 of 2016 dt.19-05-2017 proceeding, in my opinion, by the superannuation of the petitioner, the issue of suspension, for the present and until such time that an order is passed causing prejudice to the petitioner has been rendered academic.

In so far as the departmental proceeding is concerned, this Court is not persuaded to interfere therewith for it is entirely within the domain of the Disciplinary Authority whether or not to continue with the disciplinary proceeding post superannuation and considering the stage at which the present matter stands the Disciplinary Authority would be well advised to take a final decision on the pending proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26-05-2017 Transmission Date NA