VINAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.3.2006. A memo of four charges was issued on 20.4.2006. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 4140 of 2006. The Court by a considered order at paragraph 8 of the same quashed the resolution of the State Government initiating the departmental proceeding as also the memo of charges.

(2.) The charges related to the year 2002-2003. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.1.2008. On 22.5.2008 the respondents are alleged to have initiated proceeding against him under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules in context of the charges quashed by the Court.

(3.) The writ petition was filed on 3.3.2009 after Serving two copies of the same in the office of the Advocate General. The second copy was to facilitate expeditious filing of a counter affidavit to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. The matter was listed on 4.3.2009 when four weeks' time was granted to file counter affidavit. Nearly two and half years since the date of filing of the writ petition has not been considered sufficient by the respondents to file a counter affidavit. The Court nonetheless on 11th July passed over the matter to enable the Counsel for the State to seek instructions why no counter affidavit was being filed. He submits that he has received a written instruction from the Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department dated 12.7.2011 instructing him to seek further time of at least two weeks for filing of the counter affidavit.