IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15999 of 2006 Sri Ram Rai, aged about 53 years, son of Late Sri Prahalad Rai, resident of Mohalla Housing Board Colony Janta Flat No.56, P.S. Rampur, District Gaya. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director in-Chief, Health Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Civil Surgeon, Gaya. 4. Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Town Block Gaya. 5. The Deputy Superintendent, Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya. --------- Respondents ----------- 3 19.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is to quash a communication dated 29.11.2006, whereby and whereunder, the Deputy Superintendent of Pilgrim Hospital, Gaya had directed the petitioner to appear in the pending departmental proceeding on 1.12.2006 for placing his case. In the considered opinion of this Court, this writ application against a notice of appearing in the departmental proceeding was definitely not maintainable, inasmuch as, if the petitioner was so sanguine to the dropping of the departmental proceeding, all that he was required to do, was to appear before the Enquiry Officer and produce the order of closure of departmental proceeding as is sought to be projected by him by 2 placing reliance on the order of the Civil Surgeon dated 13.3.2006 contained in Anenxure-6 to this writ application. The reliance placed by the petitioner on an earlier order contained in Annexure-5 is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, Annexure-5 is an order of revocation of suspension which itself mentioned about the continuance of departmental proceeding despite revocation of the order of suspension. In any event, the petitioner’s writ application, having been directed merely against the notice of the Enquiry Officer dated 29.11.2006 and subsequently the petitioner had separately moved this Court again in CWJC No. 6433 of 2009 questioning the orders contained in letters of the In- charge Medical Officer dated 15.12.2008 and that of the Civil Surgeon dated 18.4.2009 seeking to take action against the petitioner which has already disposed of by order dated 12.3.2010 in his favour with certain direction has definitely made this writ application infructuous. That being so, this application is dismissed as having become infructuous. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)