IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10489 of 2004 SMT.PARO DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -With- C.W.J.C. No. 4436 of 1999 Smt Paro Devi Versus The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. -With- C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2000 Smt. Paro Devi -Versius- The High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors. 13 28.10.2009 All three writ applications have been filed by same petitioner who is a fourth grade employee of Civil Courts, Nawada, presently transferred and working at Civil Courts, Nalanda. C.W.J.C. No. 4436 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order No. 18/1999 dated 01.04.1999 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Nawada whereby she was put under suspension with immediate effect. Subsequent to the issuance of the suspension order, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which finally, concluded awarding major punishment to the petitioner on account of conclusion of the departmental p[proceeding, the order of suspension became redundant, as such, C.W.J.C. No. 4436 of 1999 has now become infructuous. It is dismissed as infructuous. C.W.J.C. No. 10748 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.01.2000 contained in letter No. 74/Adm(Misc.) whereby she has been directed to join at her new place of posting in judgeship of Nalanda. She had further prayed 2 for quashing an order dated 29.6.2000 contained in Memo No. 15025 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Nawada directing her to join in the office of District Judge, Nalanda immediately. Counsel representing the High Court has made submission that the petitioner was transferred from Nawada to Nalanda in the year, 1987 itself but ignoring the transfer order. She continued in the judgeship of Nawada . Finally, under the direction of the High Court, she was relieved and asked to give joining at Nalanda. The petitioner finally gave her joining at Nalanda and presently she is continuing at Nalanda. The transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner has become effective. Considering the facts and circumstances and new development which has taken place subsequent to the filing of the writ application, this application has also become infructuous and as such, it is dismissed. C.W.J.C. No. 10489 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the final order passed in the departmental proceeding initiated against her. The final order has been passed awarding major punishment contained in Memo No. 20/-03 dated 24.01.2004. The punishment which has been awarded to the petitioner thereby her services has been reduced to lower stage in the time scale of 2550-3200 and length of her service has been directed to be re-counted w.e.f. 24th January, 2004 instead of her initial date of appointment. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Registrar 3 General on behalf of the High Court in this case. In paeragraph-16 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the punishment order in the administrative side and that is still pending. Counsel for the petitioner in order to justify the filing of writ application against punishment order during pendency of the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the administrative side, has stated that under rule 19 of Bihar Civil Courts Staff (Class-III & IV) Rules, 1998, it has been made mandatory to dispose of appeals preferred by such employees in the administrative side, against any punishment order, within three months of the filing of appeal. On perusal of the rule 19, I find that there is no such mandatory provision, rather the word is “preferably within three months.” Considering the fact that appeal preferred by the petitioner in the administrative side is still pending, it will not be appropriate to record any finding in this writ application wherein the same order is under challenge which is under challenge in the administrative side. Accordingly, this writ application is being disposed of without considering the merit of the application. Petitioner will have liberty to challenge the order passed in her appeal pending in administrative side, after its disposal. It is appropriate that petitioner’s appeal pending in the administrative side should be decided without any further delay, as already it has remained pending for quite a considerable period. AKV/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)