IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2029 of 2004 JAI LAL PASWAN S/O DAYALI PASWAN R/O VILL- RAMPUR RAMHAR, PS- JANDAHA, DISTT- VIISHALI ----------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLELCTOR, VAISHALI, HAJIPUR 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. S.D.O. VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. DY. S.P. HEADQUARTER, HAJIPUR 6. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, PS- JANDABA, DISTT- VAISHALI------- ----------------------- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrinandan Pd. Singh, & Mr. Ashok Kumar No.1, Advocates For the State: Mr. S.S. Mishra, AC to GA-5. ---------- 3 5.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was one of the Choukidars who was working in Circle No.4 at Jandaha Police Station in the district of Vaishali. On 21st January, 1985 two criminals were caught and handed over to petitioner by local villagers to be taken to the police station. Two other Choukidars had also joined the petitioner. But the allegation is that instead of taking the criminals to the police station they allowed the criminals to flee. From the pleading it emerges that the Superintendent of Police did not take the matter lightly and a kind of enquiry was held. Based on the reply to the show cause offered by the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali on 14th May, 1985. One Prahladi Paswan who was punished similarly came before this Court in a writ application which is CWJC No. 4182 of 1989. His writ was allowed vide order dated 10.1.1997 on the ground that in absence of any proper enquiry the order of - 2 - dismissal could not be passed. So far this petitioner is concerned there is no indication about his taking any remedial measure against the order of punishment. The first indication that he wanted to challenge the order of dismissal is now available by way of annexure-3. He filed an appeal before the Collector which was registered as Misc. Case No.41/97/98. The appeal was heard and dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 11.10.2003. Thereafter the present writ application has been filed challenging not only the dismissal order passed on 14.5.1985 but even the order passed in appeal. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the order passed in the writ of Prahladi Paswan contained in annexure- 2 to the writ application. He submits that even his case ought to be considered in a similar manner and granted appropriate relief. The relief sought by the petitioner could have been extended by this Court provided he was equally vigilant in asserting his right. Order of dismissal has been passed way back in the year 1985. Petitioner moved the Collector in appeal and not before this Court in the year 1998. Prahladi Paswan came to the Court in the year 1989 itself and his matter came to be decided in the year 1997. Twenty five years have gone past since the order of dismissal has been passed against the petitioner. Unexplained delay on his part to approach the authority or this Court well in time is one of the primary reasons why the Court is not willing to interfere either with the appeal - 3 - order or with the dismissal order as it will have to effect putting the clock back by almost twenty-five years now. Since the dismissal of the petitioner from the post other person/persons have stepped into his shoes and must be down half way the age of superannuation. The Court therefore refuses to intervene in the matter in such a stale and belated issue. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)