IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1233 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2902 of 2011 ====================================================== Veena Ranjani @ Veena Ranjini, W/O Anil Kumar Shrivastava, R/O Mohalla- Keshari Nagar, Patna, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Distt.- Patna at present posted as Assistant in the Technical Development Directorate, Department Of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Additional Director, Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Director, Industries, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 7. The Joint Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 8. The Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Samrendra, S.C. 21 Mr. Md. Obaidullah, A.C. to S.C. 21. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 20-12-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2902 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is the punishment of withholding the three increments without future effect imposed upon the appellant, an Assistant in the Secretariat, for reporting late for the duty. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ Patna High Court LPA No.1233 of 2011 (4) dt.20-12-2011 2 / 2 2 petition. Therefore, this Appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Purushottam Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been made by the authority without jurisdiction. The contention is recorded with a view to rejecting the same. The question of jurisdiction is required to be raised at the first opportunity. Appellant did not raise the contention in the writ petition. The pleading cannot be allowed to be improved in the Appeal. Mr. Jha has also submitted that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is too harsh; on account of such punishment the appellant has lost chance of promotion. We see no merit in this contention either. Mr. Jha has next submitted that the State Government has, as early as on 9th July 1975, issued direction that in case of any employee reporting late such employee shall lose a casual leave for half day. He has submitted that the same treatment ought to have been given to the appellant. Reporting late for the duty cannot be treated as a misconduct liable to punishment. We see no merit in this contention either. At first, loss of half of casual leave is not a punishment. Besides; the said Circular does not debar a disciplinary proceeding on account of late reporting for duty. No other contention is raised before us. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)