IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4544 of 2010 1. SUBHASH PANDEY S/O SRI RAM NARAYAN PANDEY R/O VILL.- BHAKURA, P.S.- SIMARI, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PANCHAYAT RAJ BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR 4. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BUXAR 6. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, BUXAR CUM INQUIRY OFFICER BUXAR 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CHAUNSA, BUXAR ----------- 02. 28.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division in Case No. 556 of 2007 by which his appeal against dismissal from service has been dismissed on the grounds of limitation without going into the merits. The petitioner is stated to be a Panchayat Sewak. A show cause was issued to him, he was placed under suspension, charges were framed including supplementary charges and he came to be dismissed on 11.8.2001 after a second show cause notice. That was set aside by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11945 of 2001 on 17.2.2004 with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of infirmity in the departmental enquiry after serving enquiry report upon the petitioner. The copy was then served. The petitioner filed his reply raised objection to the conduct of the departmental proceedings, when he has been dismissed again on 30.3.2005. 2 The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1397 of 2006 challenging the fresh order of termination which was disposed off to avail the alternative remedy of appeal, when questions of limitation etc. were left open. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.10.2009 on grounds of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consequences are serious, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. He alleges procedural infirmities in the departmental proceedings. Alternatively, the ground of disproportionate punishment is also urged. No useful purpose shall be served by asking for a counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the disposal of the application at this stage in terms of the following order. Dismissal from service is a serious matter. It entails civil consequences, not only for the delinquent but for his entire family. The requirement of justice shall be that a person dismissed from service must be given full opportunity to defend on its merits. In fact, the cardinal principle of justice shall be to decide a matter on merits rather than reject it on technicalities of limitation. The Courts have always leaned in favour of adjudication on merits which bring finality and leaves the citizen with satisfaction that he had full opportunity to seek justice. The writ petition was 3 dismissed on 1.5.2007 and the petitioner has filed his appeal on 15.10.2007. This Court does not consider the same as an unreasonable delay in the nature of the injury being suffered by the petitioner. However, the conduct of the petitioner also satisfies the Court to allow the writ petition subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- only to be deposited by him before Patna High Court, Legal Aid Services Committee. If the petitioner then files an appeal within a maximum period of two months, enclosing proof of deposit made before the Patna High Court, Legal Aid Services Committee, the appellate authority is directed to take back of record No. 556 of 2007 and disposed off it on merits by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of such restoration of the record. The application stands disposed with the aforesaid direction. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)