JUDGMENT By Court.-Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9.10.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2134/ 99(R) by which the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition observing therein that the obvious consequence will follow. 2. In order to explain the controversy it may be relevant to state that while the petitioner/respondent herein was posted as god own incharge in a godown at Khunti which was functioning under the Department of Irrigation, it was alleged that he was involved in the theft of iron rods which took place in a god own situated at Khunti in the State of Jharkhand. A First Information Report therefore, was lodged on account of this theft in which the petitioner/respondent was charge-sheeted. Simultaneously a departmental proceeding also was initiated against the petitioner/ respondent and while the criminal trial was pending against the petitioner/respondent, the departmental proceeding stood concluded and as a result of the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the petitioner/respondent was dismissed from service. However, after conclusion of the criminal case the petitioner/respondent herein was acquitted of the charge of theft and on account of his acquittal, he filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the order of his dismissal. 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition although there is no express order setting aside the order of termination. However, the learned Single Judge has drawn analogy from an identical case, reported in 2002(3) JLJR 299 wherein a bodyguard who was prosecuted for an offence under Sections 363, 366A and 376/120B I.P.C. having been acquitted in the criminal case who was also departmentally proceeded, it was found that the departmental proceeding could not have been allowed to proceed. 4. In the instant matter since there is no categorical order of the learned Single Judge as to whether he has set aside the termination order, a reasonable inference can be drawn from the order that the departmental proceeding was fit to be stayed when the criminal trial was proceeding. The learned Single Judge had, thus, allowed the writ petition and was pleased to observe that obvious consequence will follow. The obvious consequence obviously would be an inference to set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner/respondent herein. 5. The learned Single Judge had, thus, allowed the writ petition and was pleased to observe that obvious consequence will follow. The obvious consequence obviously would be an inference to set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner/respondent herein. 5. It has now been informed that two appeals separately were filed by the State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. LP.A. No. 365/2003 had been preferred by the State of Bihar but, after hearing the counsel for the parties, it could be noticed that the petitioner/respondent herein, after bifurcation of the State, is an employee of the State of Jharkhand, as he was admittedly posted in Khunti which lies within the State of Jharkhand and the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand is the analogous appeal bearing L.PA No. 206/2003. Thus, -the appeal filed by the State of Bihar after bifurcation of the State will have to be treated as not maintainable since the State of Jharkhand has already preferred analogous appeal, referred to hereinbefore. 7. In view of the circumstances referred to hereinbefore, the appeal filed by the State of Bihar is dismissed as not maintainable. 8. However, L.PA No. 206/2003 has been tiled by the State of Jharkhand assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was allowed observing that the consequence will follow as already indicated hereinabove. We, however, have noticed that the petitioner/respondent herein has already reached the age of superannuation and even if we were to allow the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner/respondent herein cannot be reinstated in service. Thus, the State of Jharkhand has practically succeeded as the petitioner/respondent has not been able to enjoy the benefit of the order passed in his favour by the learned Single Judge as he cannot be reinstated in service since he has crossed the -age of superannuation and hence is not prejudicial to the appellant-State of Jharkhand. 9. The appeal preferred by the State of Jharkhand therefore, is dismissed as infructuous.