CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5864 OF 1988 WITH CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5862 OF 1988 -------- In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------ Md. Abdul Rauf son of Md. Manir, resident of village Sirsi, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. ....... PETITIONER IN CWJC 5864/1988 Md. Zubair son of Md. Yasin resident of village Sirsi, P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. ...... PETITIONER IN CWJC 5862/1988 VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga, Bihar ...... RESPONDENTS IN BOTH WRIT PETITIONS ------- For the Petitioners : Mr Farooque Mozzam, Advocte For the State : Mr Ram Subhas Singh, AC to AAG 6 --------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ------- Shiva Kirti Singh & Jyoti Saran, JJ. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in both these writ petitions and learned counsel for the State. 2. These two writ petitions are of the year 1988. They were admitted for hearing so that this Court may clearly enunciate the law to govern the situation where an employee is facing a criminal case in a court of law simultaneously with a departmental proceeding initiated by the competent authority or employer. The departmental proceedings in both these cases were stayed by order passed in the year 1988 with a 2 liberty that departmental proceedings may be resumed after disposal of the criminal case, if found proper. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that after so many years the matter appears to have become infructuous and he has no instruction regarding present state of affairs. 4. However, the parties are in agreement that the purpose of admitting these writ petitions is now over because law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that there is no bar under law in continuing with a departmental proceeding during the pendency of a criminal charge. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the respondent authorities may proceed with the departmental proceeding against the petitioners which had been stayed if those proceedings are still pending in the light of aforesaid proposition of law. It goes without saying that proceeding will continue only if required in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) PATNA HIGH COURT The 25th January, 2010 NAFR / S.Kumar