IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.134 of 2007 Digambar Jha, S/o late Chaturbhuj Jha, R/o Village-Telhara Kala, P.S.-Kundawa Chayanpur, District-East Champaran (Motihari) at present posted as Junior Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Dhaka (East Champaran). .............Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Division, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department, Road Division, Dhaka (East Champaran). ...........Respondents For the State : Mr. G.K. Agrawal, Adv. G.A.-10 Mr. K. Ravish, A.C. to G.A.-10 with CWJC No.139 of 2007 Umesh Kumar Mandal, S/o Sri Dhanusdhari Mandal, R/o Mohalla- Naya Bazar, Lakhisarai, P.S.-Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai, at present posted Assistant Engineer, Building Design, Circle-I, Vishweshraiya Bhawan, Patna. .............Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department Bihar, Patna. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Munger. ...........Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Adv. For the State : Smt. Shail Kumari, S.C.-15 Mr. S.K. Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.-15 ----------- 04 28.07.2011 Counsel for the State A.C. to G.A.-10, has returned the original receipt dated 03.07.1996 to the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State in both the writ petitions. 3. Petitioners in the two writ petitions at the relevant time served as Junior Engineer in the Road Construction Division, Deoghar 2 and Jamui. They have filed these writ petitions challenging the punishment as well as the appellate order passed against them after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, in which punishment of censure has been recorded in their confidential roll for the year 1992-93 further withholding one increment with cumulative effect. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 134 of 2007 impugned punishment order bears office order No. 194 dated 21.08.1999 (Annexure-4), which was also affirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority, who rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the merit of the matter, which is evident from the appellate order communicated to the petitioner under Letter No. 11071 (s) dated 19.06.2006, perusal whereof indicates that the appeal of the petitioner was rejected as the same was filed after about five years of the original punishment order. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 139 of 2007, the punishment order bears Memo No. 5736 (s) dated 17.07.1999, against which appeal was filed after about five years, which was also rejected under order bearing Letter No. 11070 (s) dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure-11), on the ground that the same is barred by limitation without considering the merit of the matter. 6. Counsel for the petitioners assailed the appellate order passed in both the cases on the ground that while considering the appeal of the petitioner delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned and the matter should have been considered on merit. In this connection, learned counsel also pointed out that petitioner, Digambar Jha, received the original punishment order and sought review of the said order on the ground that the punishment was imposed on him without considering 3 his show cause reply, which was filed by him on 03.07.1996 and receipt showing such service was also produced before the authorities alongwith the review petition but the review petition was not considered whereafter the appeal was filed which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. In the circumstances, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the appeal should have been considered in the light of the show cause reply filed by the petitioner which was received by the authority on 03.07.1996 (Annexure-3) in stead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation. 7. In C.W.J.C. No. 139 of 2007, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the punishment order dated 17.07.1999 was belatedly served on the petitioner and accordingly the appeal was filed with limitation petition, but the authorities in stead of considering the appeal after condoning the delay in filing the appeal proceeded to dismiss the same on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. 8. Having heard the counsel for the petitioners and State, I set aside the appellate order dated 19.09.2006 Annexure-7 in C.W.J.C. No. 134 of 2007 and Annexure-11 in C.W.J.C. No. 139 of 2007 and remit back the matter to the appellate authority to re-consider the matter after condoning the delay in filing the appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law as early as possible in any case, within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the appellate authority. Safik (V.N. Sinha, J.)