IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.326 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2762 of 2010 With I.A.No.1398 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Joint Secretary Water Resource Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resource Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Engineer Incharge (North), Water Resource Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna. Respondents- Appellants Versus Shankar Ram son of Late Bhikhar Ram resident of village-Math Banwari, P.S. Piprakoti, District-East Champaran, Motihari. Petitioner- Respondent ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sinha, AC-AAG-11 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 22.02.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No.1398 of 2011. The delay of 129 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory 2 Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 326 of 2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the State of Bihar and others against the judgment and order dated 26th August 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent-writ petitioner was a Chief Engineer in the State of Bihar. For certain acts of negligence and remissness in discharge of his duties during the year 2005-06, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 15th September 2006. Pending the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner has retired from service on 31st July 2007. In view of his retirement from service the disciplinary proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b)(1) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Since then the proceeding has not proceeded further. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 8631 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution. By judgment and order dated 25th July 2009 the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants to complete the disciplinary proceeding within four months from the date of the receipt of the defence statement of the 3 petitioner. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner filed a written statement on 21st August 2009. The appellants were, therefore, required to complete the enquiry within four months therefrom i.e. by December 2009. Not only the appellants failed to complete the enquiry within the specified time but also the appellants did not take care to ask for extension of time from the learned Single Judge. In absence of any application for extension of time by the appellants, the petitioner filed above C.W.J.C.No.2762 of 2009 for a direction to set aside the chargesheet dated 15th September 2006. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the chargesheet issued against the petitioner. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, has appeared for the appellants. He has vehemently argued that the petitioner had in connivance with the contractor disobeyed the order of the superior authority. The appellants should, therefore, be allowed to continue with the disciplinary proceeding. We see no substance in the argument advanced by the learned advocate. The imputation of charge made against the petitioner discloses negligence or indifference on 4 the part of the petitioner. There is no whisper of connivance with the contractor. It is apparent that the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 15th September 2006 has not been completed after more than four years; nor did the appellants care to seek extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceeding; nor there is any material why the appellants could not complete the disciplinary proceeding within the specified time. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the chargesheet issued against the petitioner. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 1398 of 2011 stands disposed of. Bibhash (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)