IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12366 of 2010 MUKUND CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner:- Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate ----------- 02. 10.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the common order of suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings by memo of charge no. 908, dated 23.7.2010. The charge is that he was transferred from Alinagar (Benipur-1) to Bangara at Saran by order dated 27.3.2007. He did not comply the same and continued to work at Alinagar (Benipur-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with others questioned the order of transfer in C.W.J.C. No. 11813 of 2007. An order of status quo was passed therein on 3.10.2007, noticing certain orders of status quo in L.P.A. No. 433 of 2007 on a similar issue. The fact that the petitioner continued at Alinagar (Benipur-1) by reason of status quo order is emphasized from Letter No. 132 dated 17.2.2009. The submission therefore is that, there is no justification for initiation of departmental proceedings, when the petitioner was continuing at 2 Alinagar (Benipur-1) under an interim order of the Court. Learned counsel for the State submits that the L.P.A. No. 433 of 2007 in light of which the status quo order was passed itself came to be dismissed on 30.7.2009 and therefore the petitioner was under obligation to go and join immediately thereafter. No separate orders for vacating his status quo in C.W.J.C. No. 11813 of 2007 was required as the order of status quo in his favour was conditional in nature depending for its sustenance on L.P.A. No. 433 of 2007. In any event these are his defence to be raised in the departmental proceedings itself. This Court finds that the petitioner had an order of status quo in his favour acknowledged by the respondents. The petitioner continued to function at Alinagar (Benipur-1) in pursuance thereof. The charge is not that he continued at that place after 30.7.2009 when the L.P.A. was dismissed. Had that been so, this Court may not have been persuaded to interfere. The charge is specific that he did not comply the order of transfer. This is in teeth of and ignores the order of status quo granted by the Court. The impugned order of suspension and initiation of departmental proceedings dated 23.7.2010 is therefore held not 3 sustainable and is accordingly quashed. This Court makes no observation with regard to the issue of transfer of the petitioner which remains in the administrative realm of the respondents in its entirety. The writ application is allowed only to the extent indicated. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)