IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.557 of 2008 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus BRAJ KISHORE SINGH @ B.K.SINGH ----------- For the appellants : Mr.Kaushal Kumar Jha, Counsel Central Government ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 28th July, 2008 The appeal suffers from delay of one hundred and ninety six days. For condonation thereof, the application (I.A.No.4396 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of any substance and does not deserve to be admitted. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “Coming back to the facts of this case, it is the finding and quite clear that the petitioner absented himself without leave for one day. The punishments that can be awarded to the petitioner are described in section 11 of the Act. However, I find that the petitioner has been facing the proceeding since 2002 which culminated in the order of dismissal issued on 07.01.2003. In my view, the proceeding and the harassment which the petitioner had to suffer for one day’s absence would be good ground to condone or treat one day’s absence as leave without pay or treat it as leave of whatever kind as the respondents would deem fit. However, since this court cannot decide the punishment to be imposed, this court would leave it open to the respondents to decide the matter keeping in view the observations made above. - 2 - Accordingly, the order, dated 7.1.2003 passed by the Commandant 94 BN, C.R.P.F. as contained in Annexure 3 is hereby quashed. Needless to say that the consequential orders passed in the appeal and the revision filed and disposed of by the D.I.G and the I.G. also stand quashed. Needless to say that the order quashing the dismissal of the petitioner from service would require that an order be passed re-instating the petitioner in service immediately. The current salary of the petitioner should be paid on his joining the service and the arrears of salary should be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, subject to the condition that the petitioner must state on affidavit that he has not worked in any Government or private organization during the intervening period.” 3. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw. The appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine, accordingly. 4. This disposes of I.A.No.4396 of 2008. 5. Since the appeal has been dismissed in limine, no question of interim relief arises. I.A.No.4397 of 2008 also stands rejected. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. sunil