← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15839/2016disposed

Kumar Sahaja Nand v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2020-06-24Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15839 of 2016 ====================================================== Kumar Sahaja Nand Son of Late Nand Lal Ram, Resident of Village- Bir, P.S.- Dhanarua, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar and Ors 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Administration, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 6.

The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna through its Secretary. 7.

The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna. 8.

The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr Advocate Mr.Satyam Shivam Sundaram For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey- AAG 15 For Madarsa Board :

Mr. Aslam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-06-2020 This matter has been taken up through virtual Court proceeding.

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

Initially the present writ application was filed challenging the order issued under Memo No. 3/AA2-45/2014836 dated 30.8.2016 passed by the respondent no.3, Director (Administration)-cum-Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.15839 of 2016(4) dt.24-06-2020 2/2 being the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, was put under suspension.

It is submitted by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of the writ application, the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner stood concluded and the order of punishment has been passed.

Though an Interlocutory Application has been filed, but learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ application with a liberty to challenge the order of punishment. Learned AAG 15 has no objection to such prayer of the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment in appropriate proceeding, if so advised.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) anil/- U