Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this writ application is now confined only so far the prayer made in LA. No. 2152 of 2001 is concerned. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order, as contained in annexure 11 issued vide memo no. 870 dated 3.3.2001, whereby and whereunder he was put under suspension. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing the order, as contained in annexure 11, even no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner nor charges were served upon her and she gracefully superannuated. It is also submitted that till date she has received no intimation from the State authorities about any departmental proceeding and in this view of the matter, the order of suspension would stand revoked automatically. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressable subject to the result of the order of suspension and departmental proceeding, if any. 6. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondents that even after superannuation of the petitioner any proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been drawn against her nor anything has been brought on record to show that during her service tenure a departmental proceeding was initiated and she was found guilty. 7. In absence of such material on record, presumption would be that after superannuation of the petitioner, the order of suspension should stand revoked automatically. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order, as contained in annexure 11, will not come in the way of the petitioner nor her claims, in any way, will be prejudiced. 9. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.