IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13575 of 2009 MANOJ AMBASHTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 27.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings upon which followed a second show cause notice after the inquiry report leading to the final order of punishment dated 3.4.2007. He preferred an appeal against the same on 17.5.2007, which has been disposed on 11.9.2007. The impugned order holds that no appeal was maintainable under Rule 24(2) of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005, but the petitioner could avail the remedy of review, if he so desires. Learned counsel for the State fairly acknowledges that a revision application against the impugned order was maintainable under Rule 28 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The limitation provided in Rule 28 for a revision application is six months from the date of the order. The misconceived appeal of the petitioner is, therefore, well within time to be treated as a revision application, which this Court directs hereby. Let the revision application (earlier designated as appeal) of the petitioner be disposed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of 2 this order. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter, which is to be decided in accordance with law and the provisions of Rule 27 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. The present is a classic example how the State generates unwarranted litigation even while acknowledging that it has statutory powers. Simply on a nomenclature, exercise of statutory discretion has been refused. This Court was inclined to impose costs but refrains from doing so. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)