Dr. Devendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MIHIR KUMAR JHA
Outcome
Disposed of
counter affidavit, this writ application is disposed of with a
Judgment
Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that this writ application on account of reaching the age of superannuation of the petitioner from service has been rendered infructuous, inasmuch as the only prayer in this writ application was for quashing of the order of suspension which also has been subsequently revoked by the authorities by an order dated
Operative part
16.6.2010, as contained in Annexure ‘F’ to the supplementary counter affidavit, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the authorities to pass a final order in relation to departmental proceeding within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. In fact counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.17421 of 2009 (4) dt.08-02-2012 2 the enquiry has already been completed and the petitioner has been served with a second show cause notice enclosing the copy of the enquiry report. If that be so, it is now the petitioner who has to expedite the matter for getting a final order passed, inasmuch as when the petitioner would file his second show cause reply, the authorities are under obligation to pass a final order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will submit his second show cause reply within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner files his second show cause reply in the aforementioned period of six weeks, the authorities must ensure that a final order is passed in next three months. Counsel petitioner expressed apprehension that even if the petitioner would be exonerated in the departmental proceeding, he having retired from the service will be deprived from his promotion which according to the learned counsel was a calculated device for depriving the petitioner from such promotion. In the considered opinion of this Court apprehension of the petitioner is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as the law in this respect is well settled that if a person whose promotion has become due is subjected to a departmental Patna High Court CWJC No.17421 of 2009 (4) dt.08-02-2012 3 proceeding, his case for promotion will be considered after disposal of the departmental proceeding and if he is fully exonerated he will be entitled for getting such promotion at least from the date from which a junior to him was given such promotion. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.