IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.358 of 2008 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus MUKESH KUMAR SINGH ----------- For the appellants : Mr.Chhotel Lal Narain Singh, Standing Counsel-I Ms. Babita Kumari, Junior counsel to Standing Counsel-I For the respondent : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior Advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar Dwivedi, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 09th September, 2008 The Letters Patent Appeal suffers from delay of three hundred sixty one days. For condonation thereof, an application (I.A.No.2887/2008) has been made. 2. It is stated in the application that the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13th April, 2007 was obtained on 30th April, 2007. Then the District Magistrate, Vaishali wrote to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna, on 24th May, 2007 to obtain approval from the Law Department for filing Letters Patent Appeal from the impugned order. On 20th July, 2007, the Deputy Secretary informed the District Magistrate that the opinion of the Advocate General, Bihar, for filing Letters Patent Appeal has been obtained through the Law Department and steps be taken for filing - 2 - Letters Patent Appeal immediately. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, thereafter wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) on 06th August, 2007 requesting him to take decision at state level. On 11th April, 2008, the file was endorsed to the Advocate General, Bihar, Patna for filing Letters Patent Appeal, who on the same day endorsed the file to the office of Standing Counsel-I for filing the Letters Patent Appeal, and the Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 05th May, 2008. 3. We are constrained to observe that the concerned authorities did not proceed with the matter in filing the appeal with due dispatch of urgency, and as a matter of fact, the file tossed between the District Magistrate, Vaishali and the Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) at their own pleasure and leisure. Even if, we accept the explanation up to 20th July, 2007, when the Deputy Secretary Home (Police) informed the District Magistrate that the opinion of the Advocate General, Bihar, Patna for Letters Patent Appeal has been obtained and steps be taken for filing Letters Patent Appeal immediately, the matter remained dormant thereafter up to 11th April, 2008. There is no explanation whatsoever for this eight month period. Once, an opinion was already given by the Advocate General for filing Letters Patent Appeal much before the 20th July, 2007, where was the justification to send the file to Advocate General after eight months on 11th April, 2008. There is total negligence on the part of the concerned authorities. - 3 - 4. We are, thus, satisfied that the cause shown in the application does not constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. The application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. 6. Even if for the argument sake, we assume that the delay is explained, in our view, the appellants have no case at all. The government counsel admitted that no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent prior to the passing of the order of dismissal. Merely because some preliminary inquiry was held and it was found that the respondent obtained the employment by false signature, it did not absolve the appellants in holding the disciplinary inquiry against the respondent. The consideration of the matter by the single judge is, thus, not at all legally flawed. 7. Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. This disposes of application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.2887/2008) as well. 8. Since the appeal has been dismissed, the application for interim relief does not survive and consequently I.A.No.2886/2008 is also rejected. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil