IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1124 of 2011 Dr.Iqbal Ahmad Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2. 1.8.2011 Mr. Vivek Prasad, Advocate, who files vakalatnama for the petitioner, states that both the earlier Advocates on record for the petitioner have joined service. It is pointed out that the petitioner is present in the Court. The vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioner is accepted and let it be kept on the record. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking to challenge an order of punishment dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure- 1) issued by the Government, by which he has been given the punishment of censure and further it has been directed that nothing would be paid to him, apart from the subsistence allowance already paid to him. It is evident that the petitioner is approaching this Court after more than 6 years of the passing of the said order of censure. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had also filed a review application on 15.9.2008, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.6.2009 2 and further representations, but there is no provision for review, that too, after four years of the order of punishment. It is not denied that the order of punishment was communicated to the petitioner within time. It is, thus, to be presumed that the petitioner had accepted the said punishment and after much delay, he has sought to challenge the same. Such challenge to an order passed in disciplinary proceedings after more than six years is not fit to be considered in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )