IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1270 of 2007 SUMAN SHEKHAR RAJHANS, Son of Sri Mahadeo Rajhans, resident of Village-Dharam Rai, Post Office and Police Station Tarapur, District-Munger. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director General of Police, Patna. 4.The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffapur. 5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Region, Chhapra. 6.The Superintendent of Police, Siwan. ----------- 2 13/7/2009 Heard Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application only prayer was made for quashing the order dated 14.5.2005 dismissing the petitioner from service after holding departmental proceeding. Counter affidavit filed in this case would go to show that the petitioner’s appeal against the aforementioned order of punishment was disposed of by the Zonal I.G of Muzaffarpur Range vide order dated 13.2.2007, i.e. after filing of this writ application on 31.1.2007. The petitioner, accordingly, has also sought for quashing of the aforementioned appellate order. Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at this stage confines his relief only for assailing the appellate order as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which in his opinion has not been disposed of on merits rather on limitation. Mr. Singh in this context would inform this Court that when the order of punishment was passed on 14.5.2005 2 the petitioner was in custody and its copy was served on him on 12.6.2005 and the petitioner had filed his appeal on 27.1.2006 only after release from custody. He would explain that the police manual under Rule 852 fixes time limit of six months from the date of receipt of the order for filing an appeal and in this context Mr. Singh has submitted that the appeal was filed hardly within 45 days of receipt of the order. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that merely because the petitioner was in custody was not good enough to avoid filing of the statutory appeal within the prescribed period and the explanation that such appeal could have been filed by the petitioner on release from judicial custody can not be accepted. In the opinion of this Court an appeal against the order of dismissal being in the nature of a substantive right, its being disposed of on merits is the minimum essential requirement of the doctrine of fair play. Thus considering the period of delay being around 45 days this Court is of the view that the appeal of the petitioner must be disposed of on merits. In that view of the matter, the appellate order dated 13.2.2007 as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is hereby quashed and the Director General-Cum-Inspector General of Police is hereby directed to dispose of the appeal on merits. Counsel for the petitioner has then contended that by a judgment of this Court dated 20th April, 2009 the petitioner has 3 been acquitted from the charges in the criminal case by giving him benefit of doubt and the same therefore should also be considered by the Appellate authority while disposing of his departmental appeal. This Court would not like to express any opinion on such plea but then this subsequent development may be placed by the petitioner through a supplementary memo of appeal and the Director General of Police will consider its effect on the order of punishment in accordance with the provisions of Bihar Police Manual laying down the fate and future of a convict government servant whose conviction has been set aside not on merits but by only giving him benefit of doubt. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)