IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8534 OF 2008 BINOD PRASAD, SON OF KANHAIYA RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA D. K. KOTHI, HAJIPUR, POLICE STATION TOWN HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 2. THE DISTRIT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ESTABLISHMENT, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ……………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 2 11/05/2011 The petitioner who was the Driver of the District Magistrate, Vaishali had supposedly on the oral instructions of the District Magistrate, taken away his car for servicing. I would like to accept the fact that the petitioner could not have taken away the car, unless the District Magistrate had ordered him to do so. The allegation is not that he had taken the car for servicing, rather the allegation is that after taking the car for servicing, he created disturbance on the highway, as a result of which a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was awarded minor punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a show cause giving reasons for exonerating him from the said charges. It is submitted 2 that he had to drive the car from Mahnar (Hajipur) as there was some difficulty in the tyre, which needed to be repaired. All said and done, the effect of the punishment is now nullified by lapse of time. In the result, I do not think that it would be useful for the petitioner to pursue this writ application. This writ application is accordingly disposed of. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )