IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.75 of 2010 In LPA 736 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Harendra Kumar Tiwary S/O Umanath Tiwary, Labour Enforcement Officer, Bhagwanpur, Kaimur, R/O Mohalla- New Colony, Pakari, P.O.- Ara, P.S.- Nawada (Ara), Distt.- Bhojpur at Ara .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Labour Commissioner, Department Of Labour Resources, Bihar, Patna 3. The Labour Superintendent (Agriculture Labour), Dalmianagar, Rohtas and Kaimur 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas 5. The District Magistrate, Kaimur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== 5 21-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The review application has been pressed mainly on the ground that no adequate notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case before the enquiry officer or before the disciplinary authority. The order under review shows that the Division Bench has agreed with the views of the Writ Court in respect of relevant findings which included a finding that after receiving the show cause notice- cum- chargesheet the petitioner showed cause before the enquiry officer but thereafter never appeared. He was also given second show cause notice before the order of dismissal was Patna High Court C. REV. No.75 of 2010 (5) dt.21-12-2011 2 passed by the competent authority. In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to exercise power of review. This application is, therefore, dismissed. Since we have heard the matter on merits, we make it clear that the prayer to condone the limitation has been allowed and the limitation petition is thus allowed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Anjana Prakash, J)