IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1881 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 9733 of 1997 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.9893 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1881 of 2010 ==================================================== Daya Nand Jha son of Maha Nand Jha, resident of Village- Kataiya, Police Station-Benipatti, District-Madhubani. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. 2. The Director General, B.S.F., New Delhi. 3. Deputy Director (Administration) Hq., D.C., B.S.F., C.P.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-3. 4. Commandant 136 B.N. B.S.F. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondent UOI: Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Senior C.G.C. with Mr. Shiv Kumar, C.G.C. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 30.11.2010. Re. Interlocutory Application No. 9893 of 2010: - This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant Union of India for condonation of delay of seven days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. - 2 - Letters Patent Appeal No. 1881 of 2010:- This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 19th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 9733 of 1997. The appellant was a constable in the Border Security Force. In the year 1994, he over stayed the leave initially granted for 60 days and later extended by 42 days by 214 days. For the said act of misconduct of remaining absent from duty without leave for 214 days, the Court of Enquiry was held against the appellant. The appellant did not defend the Court of Enquiry. In view of the guilt proved against the appellant, he was dismissed from service on 28th April 1995. The departmental appeal was also rejected. The order of dismissal from service has been upheld by the learned single Judge. We see no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)