IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.357 of 2008 THE CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD & ORS. Versus MADHUSUDAN PRASAD SAHU & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate -------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------- Dated, the 4th August, 2008. This letters patent appeal suffers from delay of 252 days and for its condonation an application (I.A. No. 2888 of 2008) has been made. We carefully perused the application. In our view the delay for the period from 20th September, 2007 to 24th January, 2008 is not sufficiently explained. It is stated in the application that on 20th September, 2007 the file was placed before the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board for obtaining orders for sending the file for legal opinion and it was so ordered by the Secretary on 20th September, 2007 itself. It is further stated that on 24th January, 2008 the Learned counsel for the Board recorded a legal opinion that appeal may be preferred. As to how the matter took four months for legal - 2 - opinion is not at all explained. Then the delay from 31st January, 2008 to 10th March, 2008 is also not sufficiently explained. If the Board proceeded with the matter at its own leisure and pleasure then they did so at their peril. 2. We, thus, find that a long delay of more than eight months is not sufficiently explained. 3. Even if we assume that delay is sufficiently explained, in our considered view, the appeal has no merit and the same does not deserve to be admitted. The view of the Single Judge that the order of punishment could not relate back to an earlier date, cannot be said to suffer from any legal infirmity. By virtue of the order of this Court passed on 16th February, 2004, the disciplinary authority was to give second show cause notice to the delinquent and pass fresh order of punishment. The order of punishment passed afresh could not relate to the first order. It is true that the delinquent’s superannuation could not have come in the way in passing the order of compulsory retirement by way of punishment on completion of disciplinary proceeding but in the present case the order of punishment was sought to be made applicable retrospectively, which was not permissible. 4. Taking all these facts into consideration, Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. - 3 - 5. This disposes of the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 2888 of 2008). Since the appeal has been dismissed, the application for interim relief does not survive. I.A. No.2889 of 2008 stands disposed of accordingly. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-