IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15096 of 2004 DEVENDRA JHA, aged 57 years, son of Srikant Jha, resident of village Mishroliya, P.S. Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur. … Petitioner. Versus 1. RAJENDRA AGRI.UNIVERSITY, Pusa, Samastipur-through its Registrar. 2. The Vice-Chancellor, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur. 3. Director Administration, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur 4. Associate Dean-cum-Principal, Tirhut College of Agricultural, Dholi (Muzaffarpur). … Respondents. ----------- 3. 28.09.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the University is present. This Court as with regard to the following prayer; “1. That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the communication contained in Memo No. RAU-6/2004-3205/GS(i) dated 25/8/2004 issued under the signature of the Officer on Special Duty Judicial, Governor’s Secretariat, Bihar intimating the Vice Chancellor of Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa Samastipur that petitioner’s representation was dismissed by the Governor. This application is also being filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction for quashing that part of the order contained in Memo No. 950/Conf Section/Rau Pusa dated 22/9/95 by which the petitioner’s salary for the period of suspension till the date of his reinstatement has been withheld and the petitioner was reverted to the post of Routine Clerk. This writ petition is also filed for 2 issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Accountant and to pay him back wages in consequence of such reinstatement.” would find that the whole issue has been beautifully summed up by Hon’ble Chancellor in his impugned order, relevant portion whereof reads as follows;- “The petitioner who was working as an accountant in the Rajendra Agricultural University was found guilty of Charge of misappropriation and was removed from service by order dated 21.8.1990. Subsequently pursuant to the direction of the then Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor reduced the punishment to one of reduction in rank as a Routine Clerk with certain condition on 22.9.1995. After nearly 5 years thereafter, according to petition, he was acquitted by the criminal court on 29.5.2001. on that basis, he has filed this representation dated 8.1.2004. His prayer is for setting aside even reduction in rank and for payment for full salary throughout, as he has been acquitted. It is well settled that acquittal by a criminal court on criminal charge is entirely different from punishment for misconduct in a departmental enquiry. I find no merit in the petition. It is dismissed. This is for your information and needful.” The said view taken by the Hon’ble Chancellor is 3 unexceptional in law inasmuch as mere acquittal in a criminal case of a delinquent after the order of punishment would not entitle him to seek review of an order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding. That apart, if the petitioner did not challenge the order of the authority in the departmental proceeding and became satisfied with the modified order of punishment, he cannot later on be allowed to reagitate the same issue in a writ application as the same can not cure the fatal defect of delay and laches. Be that as it may, this court is fully satisfied that the order of Hon’ble Chancellor does not require any interference. The order of punishment against the petitioner was just and proper in keeping with the misconduct of the petitioner which had stood proved against him. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)