IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9010 of 2006 NANDU RAJAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Adv. Md. Javed Jafar Khan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, J.C. to S.C.14. ----------- 2/ 4/2/2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The brother of the petitioner, Nawal Kishore Razak, was married to one Soni Kumari @ Gudia. A matrimonial turmoil led to institution of Naubatpur P.S. Case No.51/98 by her father under Sections-498A and 307 of I.P.C. and other sections of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. In Sessions Trial No.45/98 arising out of the same disposed by order dated 23.12.2002, the charges failed under Section-307 and other sections of I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act. The petitioner and others were, however, found guilty under Section-498A/34 of I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No.10/03 was preferred against the same. The petitioner in pursuance of the conviction as aforesaid, came to be removed from service by orders dated 8.4.2006 and the order dated 24.4.2006. His brother, the husband of the alleged victim was likewise removed from service. He assailed his punishment in 2 C.W.J.C. No.390/04. On 6.10.2004 this Court noticed the stand of the respondents themselves that the order of removal was valid in view of the conviction. If the conviction was set aside by an appellate court, the matter would have to be considered in a different perspective. This Court, however, came to the conclusion that the punishment was excessively harsh and disproportionate when the matter was remanded to the authorities for re-consideration on the aspect of punishment only. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It states that Criminal Appeal No.10/03 preferred against the conviction has been allowed inasmuch as matrimonial harmony has been restored and his brother and his wife are living together as a family. In pursuance thereof by a judgement and order dated 27.6.2008 in the criminal appeal, the parties have been acquitted of all the charges under Section-498A of I.P.C. This Court has already noticed the stand of the respondents in the earlier writ petition preferred by the brother of the petitioner, i,e, the husband of the alleged victim, that if the appeal were to be allowed, the matter shall have to be considered in an entirely different perspective. 3 It is now for the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the order of removal of the petitioner for which the very substratum of the order is gone now. The attention of the Court is drawn to the pleadings in paragraph-4 of the present supplementary affidavit that the husband of the alleged victim, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.390/04 has already been reinstated in service. In that view of the matter, let the respondents take an appropriate decision in accordance with law of the impugned removal of the petitioners by orders dated 8.4.2006 and 24.4.2006 within a within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)