Dr.Deep NaraIn MishrA.Vs State of Bihar.and ors - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....the proceeding of the governing body, on both occasions notices were sent to the petitioner, who refused to receive them and as such governing body took a decision in that regard.3.it may be noted that challenging the decision of the governing body, the petitioner had filed a civil suit, which after two years, he withdrew and then filed this writ petition.4.in my view, the writ petition merits no consideration, for even if it was to be allowed this court could not pass any order of re-instatement inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation nor this court can grant any monetary relief to the petitioner, who had not worked at all.5. this court does not decide the matter in which relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. in such circumstances, the impugned orders are not interfered with. 6.the writ application is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:

1.Navaniti Prasad Singh, J:- The petitioner challenges Annexure 5 and Annexure 12 by which the Governing Body of the private Ayurvedic College dismissed him from service while he was serving as a Principle thereof. Notices were issued to the College and the Governing Body but no one has appeared.

2.Having perused the record and seen the proceeding of the Governing Body, on both occasions notices were sent to the petitioner, who refused to receive them and as such Governing Body took a decision in that regard.

3.It may be noted that challenging the decision of the Governing Body, the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit, which after two years, he withdrew and then filed this writ petition.

4.In my view, the writ petition merits no consideration, for even if it was to be allowed this Court could not pass any order of re-instatement inasmuch as the petitioner has crossed the age of superannuation nor this Court can grant any monetary relief to the petitioner, who had not worked at all.

5. This Court does not decide the matter in which relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned orders are not interfered with.

6.The writ application is accordingly dismissed.