Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Grievance of the petitioner as initially made out in the writ petition is captured in the order dated 4.9.2015, which is quoted hereunder: - - "It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a charge relating to construction of certain Government Girls Primary School at Haidarnagar, petitioner was proceeded departmentally on issuance of charge -sheet dated 9.10.2007 (Annexures -1 & 2) by the Director, Primary Education. After submission of his reply, petitioner has not been informed thereafter about any progress or final decision in the said departmental inquiry. Now, for the same event, he is again placed under suspension by the impugned order at Annexure -12 dated 18.8.2015 issued by the Director, Primary Education. Charge relates to the period of his posting as Block Education Extension Officer, Haidarnagar (North Palamau) and presently, he is working in the same capacity at Chhatarpur (West Palamau). There is apparently no rhyme or reason that for the charges in which he was sought to be proceeded departmentally in the year 2007, should once again be the basis to place him under suspension after eight years when he is not even serving at the said place. Learned counsel for the respondent State prays for sometime to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. Accordingly, three weeks time is allowed. List the case after three weeks on 1.10.2015." Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out on the earlier date that charge -sheet has again been issued for proceeding against the petitioner vide memo No. 2378 dated 7.10.2015 issued by the Director, Primary Education, Ranchi Annexure -E to the counter affidavit of the respondent dated 26.11.2015, which in fact is repetition of charge contained in earlier departmental proceeding initiated on 9.10.2007 while adding few more charges therein. Charges relate to the period of his posting as Block Education Extension Officer, Haidarnagar (North Palamau) while he is presently working in the same capacity at Chhatarpur (West Palamau).
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is apparently no rhyme and reason that for the same charges in which he was proceeded departmentally in the year 2007, he should be placed under suspension after eight years when he is not even serving at the said place. There is no justification for initiation of a fresh departmental enquiry in relation to the same charges which remain un -concluded for eight long years.
(3.) Counsel for the State after due deliberation with the respondents have filed supplementary counter affidavit thereafter, bringing on record order bearing No. 56 dated 18.1.2016, Annexure -A issued by the respondent No. 3, Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi. As per the instant order, earlier departmental proceeding bearing No. 2056 dated 9.10.2007 has been revoked. Proceeding initiated vide order No. 2378 dated 7.10.2015 pursuant to the direction passed by learned Division Bench of this court in W.P.(PIL) No. 4898 of 2006 in the case of Mithilesh Kumar Singh v/s. State of Jharkhand and Ors. has been continued against the petitioner.;