IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2590 of 2004 KESHAV KISHORE SHARMA SON OF LATE RAM SAJJAN SHARMA AT PRESENT POSTED AS CLERK IN WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, REVENUE DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHATURI PUNAS, P.S. AHIYAPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE SPECIAL OFFICER-CUM-DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION, BUXAR. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 4 12/07/2010 Petitioner was a revenue clerk posted in the canal circle at Motipur in the district of Muzaffarpur when large scale complaints were received with regard to appointment of seasonal workers. Superior authorities decided to look into the matter closely. Petitioner’s role was a suspect. He was asked to hand over the charge and all the records. Petitioner did not co-operate or comply with such an order for whatever reasons. He had to be put under suspension and his Headquarter was fixed elsewhere. A long set of charges were - 2 - drawn up which is annexure-3 to the writ application. An enquiry was held. From a reading of the enquiry report it cannot be said that the findings recorded therein exonerates the petitioner on all counts. Petitioner was given a second show cause but the reasons and the grounds taken therein obviously did not satisfy the respondents in view of overwhelming evidence which had come during enquiry. Order of punishment contained in annexure-9 has been passed. Punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect and that the petitioner would not be entitled to any other payments except the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension was passed. It also indicated that the punishment would not have any reflection in calculation of pension. Petitioner was reinstated and given a posting. An appeal came to be filed by him before the appellate authority but the appeal was dismissed vide Annexure-12 which is part of I.A. No. 6418 of 2004 which stands allowed. Petitioner has challenged the order passed in appeal on the ground that the same has not been decided on - 3 - merits but has been dismissed on a technical ground of limitation. Submission of the petitioner was worthy of consideration provided Rule 10(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 did not exist. The said provision does provide for limitation and it is evident from the order itself that the appeal was filed by the petitioner after three years without any petition for condonation of delay or reasons offered for such delay. If the respondents have passed the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation in terms of the provision of a rule, then it cannot be said that that order is illegal, perverse and requires interference. If what has been stated in the order is correct and is not denied otherwise by the petitioner, then the order does not require interference since it is not in conflict with any rule or law. The writ application requires no interference in light of what has been stated above. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)