IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5162 of 2010 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O SRI SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH, D/O LATE RAMBILASH MAHTO CLERK, SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BENIPATTI, MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE MEMBER , BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DISTT-DARBHANGA 3. THE COLLECTOR MADHUBANI 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER JAINAGAR, DISTT-MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 18.11.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by her order of punishment dated 19.5.2006 for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension and transfer. The appeal against the same has been rejected on 14.7.2009 affirmed in revision on 8.1.2010. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.9.2004 and departmental proceedings started on ten charges. An enquiry report came to be submitted when some of the charges were found proved and some not proved. From the order of punishment it appears that a second show cause notice was given to the petitioner. No copy of the same has been brought on record. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that withholding of salary for the period of suspension without a proper show cause notice under Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. He next submitted that the appellate court and the revisional court have committee error in refusing to decide the matter on merits and dismissing it on the ground of limitation only. The issuance of a second show cause notice after enquiry report is not in dispute. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any infirmity in the second show cause notice. In absence of the same all contentions of the order of punishment being contrary to law remain unsubstantiated and cannot be examined in the writ petition. The appeal was filed two years after the impugned order when the limitation was 45 days. In the revisional order her defence purporting to explain the delay has been noticed in para 3 but was not found acceptable. This Court having gone through the discussions contained in para 3 of the revisional order finds no reason to arrive at a different conclusion. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)