IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------------ Letters Patent Appeal No.228 of 2011 RADHA KRISHNA SINGH aged about 68 years, son of late Yadunandan Singh, R/o village- Bagwa, P.S. Agiwan, District-Bhojpur, at present residing at Jai Prakash Nagar, Arrah, District- Bhojpur……………………………………………….. Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department having his office at Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, District- Patna 2. The Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Departing having its office at Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, District- patna. 3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department having his office at Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, Patna. 4. The Finance Commissioner having his office at Old Secretariat, P.S. Sachivalaya, District- Patna 5. The Accountant General ( A. & E. ), Bihar, Patna having his office at Birchand Patel Path, P.S. Kotwali, Patna ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Manmohan Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Vikas Mohan, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG - V Mr. S.R. Sharan, Advocate ------------ 5 30-6-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing C.W.J.C. No. 18413 of 2009 was dismissed as withdrawn on 31-3-2010 with liberty to the petitioner that he may avail statutory remedy before the concerned authority, which shall consider petitioner’s grievances. Against that order the appellant once again moved this Court seeking review on the ground that no appeal has been provided and only a review application can be preferred before the concerned authority. 2 The review application bearing no. 100 of 2010 has been dismissed by the order dated 24-11-2010 after noticing that there is alternative remedy available, if not by way of appeal then by way of review. We have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that under Rules 23 to 28 of Bihar Government Service ( Classification, Control and Appeal ), Rules 2005 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’), there is a clear provision that a Government servant may prefer an appeal against the order of suspension or order of punishment and while specifying the appellate authority, it has been indicated that there shall be no appeal against the order of the Government. However, review petition may be filed in the form of memorandum of appeal and again in Rule 28 remedy by way of revision has been provided, which can be availed within six months from the date of the order either at the instance of the delinquent employee or at the instance of the authority concerned. The revisional power is wide enough to confirm, modify or set aside the order under revision. It is categorical stand of the State that appellant was rightly given liberty to move the statutory authority before he 3 could invoke writ jurisdiction and since the appellant, on that plea, withdrew the writ petition, there is no good ground to review the order dated 31-3-2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No.18413 of 2009. On considering the provisions in the Rules enacted under proviso to Articles 309 of the Constitution, we are of the view that no good ground exists for reviewing the order dated 31-3-2010 noticed above. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Considering the confusion under which the appellant sought review, we clarify that if a memorandum of appeal or revision application is preferred before the concerned authority within six weeks from today, in that event the same shall be considered on merit without raising issue of limitation. It is made clear that we have not expressed our view regarding merits of the controversies between the parties. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( V. Nath, J)