Renu Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7110 of 2018 ====================================================== Renu Sinha W/o Sri Mahesh Pd. R/o Muhalla - Balhi, P.S. Saharsa in the district of Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3.

The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna.

4.

The District Magistrate, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ application has been filed with the following relief(s):- "(i) To quash the order vide Memo No. 619 dated 26.03.2018 issued by Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna under signature of the Secretary, Commissioner Patna, Division Patna whereby petitioner was directed to submit her written defense that why not petitioner be dismissed from her service on account of conviction in Special Vigilance Case No. 61 of 2007 by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna.

(ii) For restraining the respondent authority to take any coercive action

Patna High Court CWJC No.7110 of 2018(4) dt.08-04-2024 2/2 against the petitioner till the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2016 filed against the above mentioned conviction order passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna.

(iii) To stay the operation of order vide Memo No. 619 dated 26.03.2018 till the disposal of the writ application."

3. Learned counsel for the State raised preliminary objection and submits that the case of petitioner is pre-matured, as he has filed the present writ application challenging the show cause which is Annexure-4. He further submits that the petitioner has already taken status quo vide order dated 20.04.2018 and no purpose shall be solved keeping the case pending.

4. After hearing the argument and perusal of the record, it transpires to this Court that on the date of filing, the age of petitioner was 57 years in the year 2018. Now, it is 2024. Meaning thereby, the petitioner has crossed the age of 60. As such, she is now not in service and may be retired.

5. In this view of the matter, this Court disposed of this writ petition directing the respondents' authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with law within a fixed time. (Dr. Anshuman, J) sadique/- U