IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16265 of 2009 1. RAM PRASAD S/O LATE BISHWANATH PRASAD R/OVILL NEAORAGANJ, P.O. NEORA, P.S. BIHTA, DISTT- PATNA, AT PRESENT SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ADVANCE PLANNING CIRCLE &SECERETARY TO THE CHIEF ENGINEEER(4) TECHNICAL , GOVT. OF BIHAR, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT , PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VISHWESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. JOINT SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. DEPUTY SECRETARY- CUM- CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. SRI RAJ KUMAR SINGH, EX- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,AT PRESENT SECRETARY, DEFENSE PRODUCTION , RAKSHA BHAWAN, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE, NEW DELHI 7. DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY, COMMISSIONER- CUM- ENQUIRY OFFICER BIHAR, PATNA 8. BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY 9. RAGHUNATH PRASAD, TECHNICAL SECRETARY TO SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, DARBHANGA, ROAD CIRCLE, AT, P.O. &DISTT- DARBHANGA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Umesh Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amod Kumar, Adv., Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv., Mr. Raghwendra kr. Singh, Adv., Smt. Nilu Agarwal, Adv. For the BPSC :- Mr. Krishna Mani Prasad, Adv. ----------------- 3. 28.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Respondent no. 9 submitted an application for leave. The petitioner as the controlling authority forwarded his application for leave. The leave then came to be sanctioned by the Superior authority. It appears that thereafter the Superior 2 authority cancelled the leave of respondent no. 9 on certain allegations and the petitioner also got into the vertex for the fact that he had forwarded the application in what is stated on his behalf to be routine course of duties. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the leave sanctioned to respondent no. 9, has been cancelled and he has been proceeded with departmentally. It need no discussion that any allegation against the petitioner for sustainability shall depend on the edifice of the allegation against respondent no. 9, to be decided in the departmental proceeding against him. Learned counsel for the State of Bihar therefore submits that the respondents reserve their right to proceed appropriately with regard to the petitioner in a departmental proceeding based on the outcome of the proceeding against respondent no.9. This Court cannot fault the stand of the respondents. On their own stand they are now required to keep the proceeding against the petitioner in abeyance. Naturally, the concession of the State renders the present application as infructuous till such time that the respondents do not decide to proceed against the petitioner depending on the proceeding against 3 respondent no. 9. It goes without saying that all issues of facts and law raised in the challenge by the petitioner in this writ application remain open in its entirety consideration, at the appropriate stage. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)