IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3194 of 2001 SHYAMA NAND THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 6. 6.7.2009 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “ This is an application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order vide letter no. 448 dated 27.1.2001 passed by the Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Bihar, Patna communicating the same to the Chief Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bihar, Patna (as contained in Annexure 13) whereby and whereunder a direction was given to file First Information Report against the petitioner in the local police station as the petitioner is going to retire on 31.1.2001 and also for quashing the notification dated 31.1.2001 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary of the department (as contained in Annexure 14) in which a decision has been taken that the departmental proceeding, which has been initiated against the petitioner by resolution dated 2 17.4.1998 shall be continued as the petitioner is going to be retired with effect from 31.1.2001 and the petitioner has been exonerated from suspension with effect from the same day, also for quashing the charge sheet and the whole departmental proceedings against the petitioner as the proceeding became stale as the same has been initiated for the incidence which has taken place in the year 1991, after a lapse of 9 years.” This Court would fail to understand as to how this Court can put a bar on any person with regard to lodging of the F.I.R. That is a command of legislature u/s 154 Cr.P.C. and this Court cannot direct any person not to lodge any F.I.R. if cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner or any other person. Similarly the prayer of the petitioner that the departmental proceeding initiated prior to his superannuation should not be converted in terms of Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, is also wholly misconceived as this aspect of the matter has also been settled by the Full Bench of 3 this Court. Consequently this Court must record that this writ application was filed on 7.3.2001 and thereafter it has been deliberately kept pending as would be apparent from the order dated 5.7.2007, 6.7.2007 and 4.9.2008 on which day this Court had found no reasonable explanation for absence of the counsel for the petitioner. This Court even on merit would not find any reason to interfere and accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/