CW/3814/2002 of BHOOR SINGH Vs STATE and ORS on 23 September 2002

:: ORDER ::

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3814/2002.Bhoor Singh Vs. State & Ors.

..

Date of Order :::: 23[rd ] September, 2014.

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Appearance:

Mr. K.R. Choudhary, for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Bissa, Government Counsel, for the respondent-State.

- -

BY THE COURT:

1. The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable withthe respondent-Police Department, has challenged the impugnedpunishment order Annexure-P/4 dated 24.08.1997 by which hewas awarded with minor punishment of Censure after holding aninquiry under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. The AppellateAuthority as well as the Reviewing Authority have also passedorders (Annexure-P/6 and Annexure-P/8) against the petitioner.Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioneron 24.04.2002 with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed thatthe writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly beallowed and

i)by an appropriate writ, order or direction theimpugned order ANNEXURE P/4 dated August24, 1997 may kindly be quashed and set asideimpugned order ANNEXURE P/4 dated August24, 1997 may kindly be quashed and set aside S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3814/2002.Bhoor Singh Vs. State & Ors.Final Order dated 23.09.20142/2

and also subsequent orders passed by theappellate authorities as well as the ReviewingAuthority ANNEUXRE P/6 dated December 23,2000 and ANNEUXRE P/8 dated December 10, 2001, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii)by an appropriate writ, order or directionwhich may be considered just and proper in theinterest of justice may kindly be passed infavour of the petitioner;

iii)The costs of this writ petition may kindly beawarded to the petitioner.”

3. It is noticed that the petitioner was 50 years of age at timeof filing of the present writ petition in the year 2002 and he hassince retired from the services of the respondents on achieving theage of superannuation and he is being paid regular pension and,therefore, the issue which is sought to be raised in this writ petitionhas become an academic issue and the writ petition has becomeinfructuous.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute thisposition and has no objection in disposal of this writ petition asinfructuous.

5. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition isdismissed as infructuous. A copy of this order be sent to theparties concerned forthwith.

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.