Pramod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2744 of 2018 ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, Son of Ram Narayan Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Sati Ashthan, Sonkukura Road, P.O. & P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna having its Office at New Secretariate, Patna.

2. The Director of Agriculture, Bihar Patna Directorate of Agriculture having his Office at New Secretariate, Patna.

3. The District Agriculture Officer, Patna having his office at Mithapur Pharm, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Chitranjan Sinha- Paag2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is seeking relief for issuance of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to take his joining, as he has been appointed as Agricultural Coordinator after being declared successful by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission.

From the record it appears that at the time of his joining the respondent could know pendency of a criminal case that too filed by the Vigilance for financial misdeed.

This Court cannot issue a mandamus giving direction to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2744 of 2018 (3) dt.27-07-2018 2 /2 respondent to accept the joining of petitioner as he is facing a very serious charge.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits the criminal case is at the stage of evidence and the charge has been framed in the month January, 2017, but till date no prosecution witness has come forward to depose in this case.

This Court could not give direction for acceptance of joining of petitioner, but it is desirable that court below must conclude the trial (Special Case No.64 of 2016, Vigilance Case No. 119 of 2016) at the earliest and prosecution is supposed to produce all witnesses without consumption of unnecessary delay. This Court directs court below to dispose of the case of the petitioner within a period of eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/Sunny U