IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4178 of 2005 SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR TRIPATHI s/o Late Raj Bali Tripathi R.O.V Charghat, P.S.-Bihiyan, Distt-Bhojpur. At present working as the Employment Officer, Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, Bodh-Gaya, Dist-Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Labour and Employment Govt. of Bihar new Secretariat, Patna. 2. Sri R.C Vaishya, the then Secretary of Labour and Employment Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Labour Employment and Training Directorate Govt. of Bihar Cum-the Conducting Officer, Patna. 4. Mr. Dil Mohan Paswan Ex-Joint Director, Labour &Employment Training as also the then conducting Officer Joint Director, Planning and Training Bihar Patna. 5. Mr. Employment Officer, District Employment Exchange, Vaishali the then as well the existing Presenting Officer. 6. The Commissioner cum Secretary Department of Labour Planning and Training Govt. of Bihar Patna. ----------- 4 01.04.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. This writ application had initially been filed by the petitioner for quashing the amended resolution No. 6/ Shram-Vee- LO-6090/’98-Labour Emp-1778 dated 13.9.2004 of the Department of Labour Employment and Training Directorate, Government of Bihar, whereby on retirement of earlier Conducting Officer, a decision was taken to appointment another Conducting Officer for conducting the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Petitioner had also prayed for quashing of subsequent letter dated 24.1.2005 issued by the newly appointed Conducting Officer, informing the petitioner about re-initiation of the departmental proceeding. On perusal of these two letters, I find that apparently there is no illegality as the departmental 2 proceeding was still in progress when the Conducting Officer retired, recommendation was made to appoint another Conducting Officer, for concluding the unconcluded Departmental Enquiry. In this view, impugned orders contained in Annexures 3 and 5 are proper orders, passed for concluding the departmental proceeding, which had not been concluded. During the pendency of this writ application, departmental proceeding, so initiated against the petitioner has been concluded and a minor punishment of censure has been awarded to the petitioner, finding the charges proved. Final order passed in the Departmental Proceeding vide Memo No. 1756 dated 17.5.2007 has been annexed as Annexure-16 to the interlocutory application, which has been passed by Deputy Secretary of Labour Recourses Department. I do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner, since proper opportunity was provided to the petitioner for defending him during the departmental proceeding and following the procedure, in accordance with law, minor punishment has been awarded. Considering this fact, this writ application is disposed of. Prakash ( Mridula Mishra, J.)