IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6203 of 2008 PUSHPA KUMARI, WIFE OF MAYA SHANKAR ( DAUGHTER OF VIR SAHA GUPTA), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION- RAMGHAR, DISTRICT-KAIMUR (BHABHUA) …….. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL- CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR. ….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to AAG-2 ----------- 03. 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the state. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as constable with District Police Buxar. She is aggrieved by the order bearing memo no. 2325 dated 28.11.2002, Annexure-1 whereunder she has been directed to be removed from the list of constables serving with the District Police Buxar since her appointment has been found to be irregular and her show cause not satisfactory. Earlier, petitioner was appointed as constable by the Superintendent of Police Kaimur (Bhabhua) under order bearing memo no. 1239 dated 02.10.2002, after condoning the minimum age provided 2 for such appointment. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid impugned termination order dated 28.11.2002 could not have been passed without conducting any regular departmental proceeding against her. Impugned order having been passed only after seeking show cause reply from the petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory as while passing the said order no reason has been indicated as to why the show cause filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory. 3. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order of this Court dated 18.01.2007 passed in the case of Ram Payre Pd. Singh Versus The State of Bihar & Ors bearing (C.W.J.C. No. 10603 of 2003) whereunder other similar removal order passed in compliance of the directions of the Director General of Police has been set aside by this Court. Aforesaid order of the High Court has been noticed as counsel for the petitioner placed reliance over the same without appreciating the fact that the said writ case was filed in the year 2003 challenging the order passed on 08.05.2003. In the instant case, it appears that the impugned removal order 3 is dated 28.11.2002 Annexure-1 but the writ petition was filed after six years i.e. on 17.04.2008. 4. In the circumstances, on the ground of laches and delay in approaching this Court, I am not inclined to proceed with the writ petition which is dismissed. Devendra/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)