IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1040 of 2007 Sanjay Kumar son of Yogendra Nath Srivastava resident of Miller High School Campus near Patna High Court, P.S. Kotwali, District Patna …. ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary Cum Inspector General of Registration, Govt. of Bihar, Patna …. ….. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P.-3 03/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as peon in the office of the Inspector of Registration, Kosi Division Saharasa. He has filed this writ petition questioning the office order bearing Memo No. 795 dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4 whereunder petitioner has been censured with further direction that he shall not be paid salary beyond the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. 3. The challenge is made to the office order bearing Memo No. 795 dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4 on the ground that while passing the aforesaid order, the Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna did not notice the finding recorded in the enquiry report dated 18.3.2003, Annexure-3 submitted by the Enquiry Officer after considering the written defence filed by the petitioner 2 to the memo of charge dated 29.1.2003 whereunder petitioner is alleged to have removed two number of seals from the office, as reported by Sri Bhagirath Mahto, Routine Clerk in his report dated 18.11.2002. In response to the aforesaid charge sheet, petitioner submitted his written defence dated 26.2.2003, Annexure-2 before the Enquiry Officer, namely, Inspector of Registration, Patna Division, Patna disputing the allegations that he removed the two seals from the office as alleged by Sri Bhagirath Mahto, Routine Clerk. In this connection, petitioner also stated in his written defence that the removal is alleged to have been made by him on 15.11.2002, but such report was not made on that date, which was made belatedly on 18.11.2002. In this connection, it is also pointed out in the written defence that Sri Bhagirath Mahto, Routine Clerk without obtaining any permission from the superior(s), himself procured two seals from the open market to make good the loss of the two seals from the office. Considering the aforesaid written defence of the petitioner, the Enquiry officer submitted report dated 18.3.2003, Annexure-3 holding the petitioner not guilty of the aforesaid charge of having removed the seals from the office on 15.11.2002. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from perusal of the impugned punishment order dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4, it appears that the findings recorded in the aforesaid report submitted by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, has not been considered and as the Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna has proceeded to punish the petitioner without considering the findings recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer, impugned punishment order should be set aside on the ground that before punishing the petitioner, the findings recorded in the enquiry report submitted in favour of the petitioner was not considered. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions and with reference to Rule 24 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 submitted that the impugned punishment order dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4 being appealable before the departmental Minister, this Court should not interfere in the matter. Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 having been framed in the year 2005, in my opinion, cannot govern the challenge made to an order dated 4.4.2003. Counsel for the State then submitted that the writ petition having been filed on 24.1.2007 should not be 4 entertained as the same is hit by the principles of laches having been filed after more than two years of the passing of the impugned punishment order. 6. I am not to appreciate any of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the State. The impugned punishment order having been passed on 4.4.2003, Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 will have no application to the facts of the case. Petitioner could have filed appeal under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules 1935. The ground of laches also does not impress this Court as petitioner having challenged the said order within a period of three years, as such, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches. The impugned punishment order dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4 having not considered the findings recorded in the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry officer in favour of the petitioner holding him not guilty of any of the charges, I set aside the impugned punishment order dated 4.4.2003, Annexure-4 and remit back the matter to the Secretary-cum- Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna to revisit the punishment of the petitioner in the light of the findings recorded in the 5 enquiry report dated 18.3.2003, Annexure-3 submitted in his favour. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)