IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9116 of 2010 MD. SAHABUDDIN S/O MD. ALAWDDIN R/O MOHALLA- MIRZAPUR (BARDHE) P.S. MUFASIL, DISTT.- MUNGER ………. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE D.I.G. MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JEHANABAD ……….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 11/04/2011 A preliminary objection is raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ application suffers from gross delay and laches. It is submitted by him that the punishment order dismissing the petitioner from service, as contained in Annexure-1, was passed on 19.6.1998. Thereafter, petitioner sat over the matter for 12 years and, showing some reminders to have been sent in 2009, has filed this writ application in 2010. Apparently, there is delay of almost 12 years in approaching this Court. This ground itself was sufficient to dismiss the writ application on account of delay and laches. However, facts of the case show a shocking state of affairs. The record shows that the petitioner had been dismissed from 2 service vide impugned Annexure-1, by following a procedure not only not known to law, rather shocking to law. Admittedly departmental proceeding against the petitioner was initiated and concluded which resulted into his termination while he was in jail in connection with the pending criminal case. Allegation against the petitioner was that while he was on Magazine duty, one constable with cash box came to him and kept the said cash box in the custody of the petitioner and went to ease himself. When he came back, he did not find the cash box or the petitioner there. F.I.R. was instituted immediately on the same very day i.e. 10.6.1997. Petitioner was taken into custody on 20.6.1997. After almost one year charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 24.5.1998 giving him only eight days time to file reply, during which period, apparently, petitioner was in jail. The conducting officer proceeded with the enquiry, examined as many as five witnesses and submitted his report on 5.5.1998, as contained in Annexure-B with the counter affidavit. It is contended that the enquiry report was never served on the petitioner which fact 3 is not being denied by learned counsel for the respondents. Final order was passed on 19.6.1998, vide Annexure-1, at the bottom of which it is mentioned that the copy of the final order along with enquiry report be served on the petitioner in Sub-Jail, Jehanabad where the petitioner was still in confinement. Petitioner was finally released on bail on the orders of this Court on 17.8.1998. This shows how the respondents have proceeded in the matter, completely ignorant of rules of law and fair play. Appeal of the petitioner also has not been considered for the last ten years which he admittedly filed promptly. In the circumstances, delay in approaching this Court is condoned and the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service, as contained in Annexure-1, as well as entire proceeding is quashed. Respondents shall restore the petitioner in service and if advised, shall be at liberty to proceed against him afresh. However, in view of imputation of charges against the petitioner, this Court holds that the petitioner shall not 4 be entitled to any salary of the intervening period. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)