IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8291 of 2009 Animesh Kumar Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 05/08/2011 The writ application was filed on 17.7.2009 after serving two copies of the writ application in the office of the Advocate General, the second one to facilitate early filing of the counter affidavit to assist the Court in timely dispensation of justice. A period of over two years has not been considered sufficient time by the respondents to perform their duty of assisting the Court. If that were not enough, the indulgence granted to them on 20.7.2009 by adjournment for filing of counter affidavit still has not woken them up from stupor. Learned counsel for the State has prayed for further adjournment. The Court is satisfied that any further indulgence to the respondents for filing of the counter affidavit can only be at the cost of denying the petitioner timely access to justice which may amount to no justice at all. It can be a matter for enquiry by the respondents themselves why no counter affidavit was filed for such long periods. The petitioner is a Block Development Officer who was subjected to a departmental proceeding on 2 eight charges by a memo. of charge dated 5.1.2000. An enquiry report came to be submitted on 14.6.2008 of indictment leading to the order of punishment dated 12.11.2008 visiting him with the stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, stoppage of promotion for three years and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be payable for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was entitled to be given a copy of the enquiry report with an opportunity to show cause against the same to persuade the disciplinary authority that another view of his exoneration may also have been possible. Denial of that opportunity vitiates the order of punishment. It has been emphasized that the petitioner was originally suspended on 28.3.2001 in pursuance of the admitted charges and remained under suspension till eight years till it was revoked. It is unfortunate that the respondents have failed to file a counter affidavit. The controversy could have been brought to an finality one way or the other if the counter affidavit had been filed. Due to non-filing of the same the controversy will continue. The petitioner is now in possession of the enquiry report. The opportunity to file his reply to the same has to be made 3 available to the petitioner. The Court therefore directs the petitioner to submit his reply to the enquiry report within a maximum period of four weeks from today. The disciplinary authority is then required to pass a final order within a maximum period of four weeks thereafter. The impugned order dated 12.11.2008 for reason of a procedural infirmity is accordingly set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)