IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13429 of 2000 RAMANUJ PRASAD SINGH Versus B.S.R.T.CORPORATION & ORS ----------- 6. 2.5.08 Heard Mr. Vindhyachal Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Mani Kant Mishra for the respondent- Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses I.A. No.2457 of 2005, wherein it is stated that the writ petitioner died on 12.3.2005, leaving behind his heirs mentioned in paragraph 2 of this application and for substitution of the heirs. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same. In that view of the matter, let the name of the petitioner be expunged and be substituted by his heirs mentioned in paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application who have already entered appearance through counsel and filed duly executed Vakalatnama. I.A. No. 2457 of 2005 is accordingly disposed of. This writ petition is directed against the order bearing Memo No. 2710, dated 31.7. 1993, passed by the learned disciplinary authority, whereby the punishment of deprivation of three increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner has been inflicted. It is further 2 directed against the appellate order dated 12.1.1996 (Annexure-8), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. We shall describe the original writ petitioner as “the employee”. According to the writ petition, the employee was, at the relevant point of time, working as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. On 18.3.1993, while he was driving a bus, there was a raid/inspection of the bus by the Traffic Inspector. He lodged a Sanha on 21.3.1993, wherein allegation was levelled against the employee for beating the Traffic Inspector on account of the inspection. This was followed by a departmental proceeding, wherein the said allegation as well as further allegation was leveled against him of transporting materials and goods without booking the same in accordance with established procedure, thereby causing loss of revenue to the respondent- Corporation. The employee was placed under suspension on 27.3.1993, and the memo of charges was served on him on 13.4.1993. On the basis of the enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment was inflicted on him. The employee thereafter approached this Court by filing the writ petition 3 which was dismissed with the liberty to prefer an appeal, which he did prefer. The same was dismissed leading to the present writ petition. While assailing the validity of the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copies of the enquiry report and second show cause were not served on him. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1991) 1 S.C.C. 588 (Union of India and Others. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan). In his submission, the petitioner has been visited with a major penalty. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner did not cooperate during course of enquiry and it is manifest from Annexure-A series that he did not appear during the enquiry inspite of repeated notices and did not file show cause. He also submits that the writ petition is hit by delay. He next submits that the petitioner has earlier filed five writ petitions with respect to the dues relating to the departmental proceeding. He next submits that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he suffered prejudice on account of non-supply of a copy of the enquiry report. He lastly submits that the 42nd amendment of the constitution has 4 dispensed with the second show cause notice. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C.1074 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc.ect.Vs. B. Karunakar, etc.etc.). We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. There is no need to discuss the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in view of the nature of the order that is going to be passed. The appellate order was passed on 12.1.1996, and the writ petition was lodged on 19.12.2000. The same suffers from un- explained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S. K. Katriar, J.) Vinay/