IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.303 of 2007 SHASHI KANT SHRIVASTAVA S/O LATE HARIHAR PRASAD, R/O LALA TOLI ROAD, DUMRAON TOWN, P.O. & P.S. DUMRAON, DISTRICT-BUXAR. --APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD. (BISCOMAUN), WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., (BISCOMAUN), WEST GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA. --RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : M/s Madan Mohan Prasad, Manindra Kumar & Anurag Pandey. For Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Chaudhary No. 3 & 4 11 22.06.2011 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner-appellant against the order dated 23rd February, 2007 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC no. 9433 of 2033. The grievance of the appellant was against the order of dismissal passed by the respondents on 30.05.1985 for the charges of defalcation while working as Assistant Depot Manager at Raghunathpur Depot of Biscomaun. The appellant preferred Appeal no. 240 of 2 1985 which came to have been disposed of after eighteen years on 12.03.2003 (Annexure-1). The same was questioned by the appellant in the writ petition on the ground of natural justice to the effect that no enquiry was conducted nor any enquiry report was furnished to him. A counter affidavit was filed before the learned single Judge stating that in the representations made by the appellant herein he has not stated the prejudice caused to him by non-supply of any of the documents like enquiry report. The learned single Judge has also found that the appellant has not complained about any prejudice which might have been caused to him in non- supply of the documents. Same was subjected to the present Letters Patent Appeal. The learned counsel has argued that the entire act of the Corporation was in violation of principle of natural justice as no enquiry was conducted nor any enquiry report was furnished to the appellant. The learned counsel has also cited number of case laws which are as follows: (1) AIR 1958 SC 300; (2) AIR 1967 SC 1427; (3) AIR 1981 SC 136; (4) AIR 1991 SC 101 & 471; (5) 1981 Lab & IC 1192; (6) 1994 (2) PLJR 575 (H.C.); (7) 1999 (1) PLJR 30 (SC); (8) 2006 (4) PLJR 514 (H.C.). 3 However, the pleadings in the writ petition goes to show that the dismissal order has been passed against the natural justice. Perusal of the documents goes to show that he was dismissed from service on 30.05.1985 and he preferred service Appeal no. 240 of 1985 before the Registrar, Department of Co-operative, Govt. of Bihar which came to have been disposed of on 12.03.2003. However, the appellant has not approached the proper forum to dispose of the Appeal within the time frame. We have observed that the appellant has not approached any legal forum for any relief for a period of eighteen years and there is no reason forthcoming for the delay of eighteen years in seeking relief. In the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to any relief sought for and, accordingly, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal. AAhmad/ (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)