Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Chandrasekhar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
(2.) THE writ petitioner states that the private respondents were made accused in Jarmta Police Station Case No. 70 of 1995 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 307/302/477/379 of the Penal Code. Pursuant to the institution of the aforementioned criminal case, these respondents were put under suspension, but for reasons best known to the authorities, the orders of suspension were withdrawn and they were allowed to move around freely. The learned counsel further submits, with reference to paragraph 13 of the writ petition, that one of the relatives of the petitioner was murdered and these respondents are moving around freely although representation filed by the petitioner Hide Annexure 3 has not yet been disposed -off. Mr. H.K. Mehta, learned Government Advocate points out, with reference to the counter affidavit, that there is nothing wrong in the order of withdrawal of the orders of suspension as they were done on the basis of an opinion of the Public Prosecutor. Mr. H.K. Mehta refers to paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit in support of his contention that the suspension orders were revoked entirely on the basis of legal opinion given by the Public Prosecutor. The petitioner's statement to the effect that the respondents are moving around freely notwithstanding the fact that one of his relatives was killed and Jamua Police Station Case No. 90 of 1995 was instituted, are matters which cannot be interfered with by this Court taking into consideration the fact that at this stage nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court to either challenge or to look into the aspects on the basis whereof the orders, of suspension were withdrawn. Additionally, what the petitioner wants appears to be, really a protection in the garb of this writ petition. Unless cogent materials are brought before this Court justifying such an apprehension, a writ Court cannot pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) AT this stage, Mr. Chandrasekhar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit there is a specific mention of the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, after having found the opinion of the Public Prosecutor to be fit for acceptance, ordered the withdrawal of the orders of suspension, but at the same time passed an order of departmental proceedings.;