Smt. Manju Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5547 of 2017 ====================================================== Smt. Manju Sinha, W/o Sri Nityanand Singh, R/o Shiv Murat Kunj, Road No.13, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.- Bahadurpur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Patna.

4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna.

5. The District Education Officer, Patna.

6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna.

7. The Block Development Officer, Sampatchak Block, District- Patna.

8. The Block Education Officer, Sampatchak Block, District- Patna.

9. The Block Education Officer, Punpun Block, District- Patna.

10. The In-charge Headmaster, Primary School, Ram Nagar, Bhirpur Sampatchak Block, District- Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, Adv Mr. Narendra Singh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Singh -Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 08-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioner is under suspension since 24.1.2017. The order of suspension was passed in contemplation of departmental proceeding and more than nine months have already passed but the enquiry against the petitioner has not come to an end. The suspension of the petitioner is continuing on account of inconclusive departmental proceedings.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5547 of 2017 (2) dt.08-11-2017 2/2 Mr. Navin Prasad Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of lapse of respondents in not concluding the departmental proceedings. He submits that petitioner has remained under suspension for more than nine months and as such this court should interfere and quash the order of suspension. Counsel for the respondents submits that further time may be granted to the respondents to conclude departmental proceeding.

After the hearing the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to conclude departmental proceeding positively by 5th of January, 2018, failing which the order of suspension as well as departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be closed.

With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U