IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.82 of 2009 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna 3. The Deputy Director, Land Revenue Fixation, Patna Division, Patna 4. The Collector, Nalanda 5. The Additional Collectort-cum-Conducting Officer, Nalanda 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Distt- Nalanda 7. The Circle Officer, Giriak, Nalanda.-------Appellants. Verus Choudhary Murli Manohar Prasad Roy, son of Shri Sheo Munji Choudhary, R/O Village-Bhimpatti, Choudhary „Tola, Nainijore, P.O.Chhotaki Nainijore, P.S. Shahp8ur, Distt-Bhojpur (Arrah).----- Respondent. ----------- Reg: I.A.No.413/2009. 2. 22.1.2009. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. According to the Stamp Reporter the appeal is barred by limitation of 239 days. In the limitation petition, no date has been given as to when the authority sent the file for legal opinion of the Advocate General and when the Advocate General sent the file to the department concerned. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Application stands dismissed. However, a good cause may not be lost on the ground of limitation, we have examined the merit 2 of the impugned order. Writ petitioner challenged the dismissal of his service as a measure of punishment by filing C.W.J.C.No.10520 of 1997. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the material on record, came to the following conclusion xxx xxx xxx “13.- In conclusion, this Court holds that entire enquiry is vitiated. The reliance by the Presiding officer on materials collected outside the enquiry without examining witnesses in the enquiry to prove those materials, the absence of documentary evidence in support of the charges and finally the Enquiry Officer himself assuming the role of a witness in the enquiry, are all matters which vitiate the departmental enquiry completely. In that view of the matter the impugned order of punishment dated 26.9.1997 is set aside and the writ application stands allowed.” In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the learned Single judge did not err in interfering with the order of dismissal. Appeal stands dismissed in limine. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma)