IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13617 of 2010 1. Sanjay Kumar 2. Ajay Kumar 3. Sanjeevan Kumar. All sons of Late Suresh Singh, resident of village- Bojhma, Police Station Warisaliganj, District Nawada, presently residing near Sankat Mochan Mandir, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada Versus 1. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, through its Managing Director, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna 2. The Chairman, B.S.R.T.C., Patna 3. The Administrator, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna 4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna 5. The Additional Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna 6. The Chief of Administrator cum Special Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna 7. The Special Work Officer (Departmental Proceeding), Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna 8. The Chief Account Officer, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Pariwahan Bhawan, Patna 02/ 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Counsel for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Father of the petitioners served as Accountant in the office of the Corporation. He was punished under order dated 12.12.1997, Annexure-10, against which he preferred appeal which was disposed of under orders dated 20.10.2003, Annexure-13 modifying the original punishment order in regard to payment of interest from 12% to 6%. Father of the petitioners did not choose to assail the two orders dated 12.12.1997, Annexure-10 and 20.10.2003, Annexure-13 while he was alive. After the death of their father and dismissal of Cr. Revision No. 73 of 2004 filed by the Depot Superintendent against the order of the Judicial Magistrate dated - 2 - 22.3.2004, Annexure-15 dismissing the protest-cum- complaint filed by the Depot Superintendent against the father of the petitioners alleging misappropriation on the ground of lack of evidence, petitioners have chosen to assail the aforesaid two orders, which were not challenged by their father during his life time. 3. Perusal of the original order as also appellate order indicates that the father of the petitioners is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of 1,22,225.46 in the light of the findings of the Auditor, but the authorities taking a lenient view of the matter instead of dismissing the father of the petitioners from service directed for recovery of the amount with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and released him from suspension. The father of the petitioners appreciating that he has been dealt with leniently by the authorities, never challenged the two orders. After the death of the father of the petitioners in 2009, the revision application was dismissed on account of his death, petitioners have chosen to challenge the aforesaid two orders, which were passed as far back on 12.12.1997 and 20.10.2003. 4. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)