Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Board and Another vs Nageshwar Das and Others

By impugned order dated 18th June, 2003, the writ petition of the writ petitioner has been allowed and it has been specifically ordered that "In effect, the petitioner stands reinstated in the services of the Board. However, the case is remitted to the Respondent Board to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law taking into consideration the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the question raised by the petitioner in the present case."

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that after the order of this Court, for fresh decision, the Charmian of the Board has dropped the proceeding against the writ petitioner-respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that subsequently passed order by the Chairman is absolutely illegal in view of even impugned order as the impugned order was set aside on the ground that Chairman had no jurisdiction to pass the order and the order could have been passed by the Board. It is submitted that in view of the above the subsequently passed order by the Chairman is illegal.

Be that as it may be, if argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted then there cannot be any merit in the L.P.A because that stand of the appellants will amount to admitting the legal issue that the chairman has no jurisdiction to pass the order which has been set aside by impugned order dated 18.6.2003. However, the appellants wants to take benefit of the same order which appellants wants to challenge in L.P.A.

At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that order against the respondent-employee was set aside and he has been reinstated and admittedly he is in service after passing of the impugned order and presently no body has challenged the subsequent order passed by the Chairman dated 9.8.2007, either the appellants or by the State of Jharkhand and we are not concerned with that order and that order is not the subject matter of the L.P.A. In view of the reinstatement of the appellant and in view of the fact that presently even in the light of the order passed by the Chairman, no enquiry is pending against the petitioner, we do not find any reason to keep this L.P.A pending where the management itself has right or wrongly decided to take against the respondent-employee. Therefore, this L.P.A has, in fact, become infructuous.

Hence, this L.P.A is dismissed having become infructuous.