IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No 653 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.C.SRIVASTAVA sd/- ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? No -------------------------------------------------------------- NATUBHAI NATHABAHI C ARYUA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MB BUCH for Petitioner Ms.K.N.Valikarimwala, A.G.P. for Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.C.SRIVASTAVA Date of decision: 08/10/98 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. This Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of the following brief facts:- The revisionist was suspended vide order dated 1.2.1995 pending departmental inquiry against him. The Suit was filed by the revisionist praying that the order of suspension be stayed. The trial Court accepted the prayer of the revisionist and stayed the order of suspension. The State Government preferred Appeal against the order of the trial Court. The lower Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and reversed the order of the trial Court. Thereafter present revision was filed in which the suspension order stands stayed till today. 2. Ms. K.N.Valikarimwala, learned A.G.P. makes a statement that the departmental inquiry against the revisionist was concluded and punishment of withholding one increament was awarded on 15.11.1995 and as a consequence thereof the order of suspension stands vacated. This statement of the learned A.G.P. could not be controverted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist. Since the departmental inquiry was concluded and punishment of withholding one increament was awarded, the suspension order goes and as such this revision challenging the said suspension order becomes infructuous. 3. The revision is therefore dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. sd/- Date : October 08, 1998 ( D. C. Srivastava, J. ) *sas*