IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6368 of 2011 Pius Toppo son of Late Fransis Toppo aged about 54 years resident of Railway Quarter no. 406 A, Railway Colony, Jhajha, PO & PS- Jhajha, District Jamui .......Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 2. Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 3. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, Khagaul. 5. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, Khagaul. 6. Senior Section Engineer, Loco, East Central Railway, Jhajha 7. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, through its Registrar, 88A Sri Krishna Nagar, Patna .........Respondents ---------------------------------- For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. advocate Mr. Gautam Saha, advocate For the respondent nos. 1 to 6: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, advocate ------------------- 3 20-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railway. Petitioner was awarded punishment of removal in February, 2004. He preferred an appeal and the appellate authority reduced the punishment by order dated 18-5-2004. Against that order the petitioner preferred Original Application. No. 128 of 2009 along with Miscellaneous Application No. 229/2009. The 2 Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application (Limitation petition) because it did not find the explanation to be sufficient for condoning the delay of about five years. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that when he learnt about the relief given to Assistant Driver of the same train who was facing similar charges then he approached the authorities of the department in the year 2007 and 2008 through representation and thereafter the O.A. was preferred with limitation petition. The Tribunal was not impressed with the explanation because in its view the case of the petitioner and Assistant Driver stood on different footings. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental authorities can appreciate better, whether the role of the petitioner and Assistant Driver were same or similar in the context of charges in question and, hence, he prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition for moving before higher departmental authorities. 3 In view of aforesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid. It is made clear that further representation shall not extend the period of limitation. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)