Patna High CourtCWJC/10718/2016disposed

Rajendra Prasad Rajak v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-09-07Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10718 of 2016 =========================================================== Rajendra Prasad Rajak S/o Shri Ram Prasad Rajak R/o vill. - Sahpur Chakummer, P.O. Laxmipur, P.S. Mahua, Distt. - Vaishali, Presently Posted as Incharge Head Master of Rajkiya Kaniya Vidyalaya, Bairganiya, Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The District Education officer, Sitamarhi

4. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Sitamarhi

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bairgania, Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, GA1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.

2. Though the petitioner had moved the Court for quashing of his order of suspension dated 26.05.2016, but in view of the fact that the departmental proceeding has already been initiated and memo of charge served, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction be given to conclude the departmental proceeding expeditiously.

3. Learned counsel for the State does not object.

4. However, he submitted that the petitioner be directed to co-operate as he is not doing so.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10718 of 2016 dt.07-09-2017 2/2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures of cooperation.

6. In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the Block Education Officer, Bairgania, Sitamarhi (respondent no. 5) to ensure that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is taken to its logical conclusion expeditiously and latest within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order before him. The petitioner is required to co-operate in the matter and if he does not do so, the respondent no. 5, shall be free to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, without giving any undue indulgence to the petitioner. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U