IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1482 of 2010 1. DAYANAND PASWAN S/O SRI GAGDISH PASWAN R/O VILL MANIYARCHAUCK, P.O NAWAGADHI, P.S MUFFASIL, DISTT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE PURNIA RANGE, PURNIA, 4. THE S.P. PURNIA 5. The Home Commissioner, Govt of Bihar, Patna, ----------- 2. 27.07.2010 Learned Counsel is permitted to implead the Home Commissioner as party respondent during course of the day. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally for 96 days unauthorized absence leading to dismissal. He questioned the same in CWJC No. 9090 of 1998. The order was set aside as being contrary to law with liberty to proceed afresh. The order of punishment dated 16.10.2003 came tobe passed afresh. The petitioner states that he had earlier filed a memorial against the order of dismissal but after the fresh order of dismissal dated 16.10.2003 he has filed a fresh memorial on 17.4.2004 before the Home Commissioner which is still pending consideration. The counter affidavit of the respondents dealing with the said statement at Para 19 of the writ application is silent and does not even place on record any final order that may have been passed on this memorial. Since the petitioner claims to have been pursuing a statutory remedy which is pending with the respondents this Court is not persuaded to throw out the writ petition on grounds of delay. The delay stands explained by pendency of the memorial before the authorities. Let such memorial be considered and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This order is subject to the condition that the petitioner in his representation along with a copy of the present order shall furnish adequate evidence to the authorities that he had in fact filed a memorial in the year 2004. If he is unable to do so the authorities are under no obligation to receive any fresh memorial or a copy of any alleged memorial of the year 2004 from the petitioner and in which condition the writ petition shall stand dismissed on grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)