IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4933 of 2005 HARIHAR TIWARY Versus BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD & ORS. For the petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Advocate. For the Board : Mr. Girjesh Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 4. 14.5.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the Board is, however, not present. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the punishment order dated 18.2.2003, Annexure-9, whereunder he has been awarded two punishments, namely his three increments have been withheld with cumulative effect and the suspension period has been directed to be treated as a break in service with further direction that he shall not be allowed any emoluments other than the subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. 3. Petitioner assailed the said order dated 18.2.2003 by filing appeal before the appellate authority which has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation as the same was filed beyond the period of two months from the date of issue of the punishment order dated 3.2.2005 and is contained in Annexure-13 to this application. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the facts of the present case, the appellate authority ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 18.2.2003 and accordingly, the appellate order dated 3.2.2005 is set aside with direction to the appellate authority to re-consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits. The appellate authority while considering the appeal will bear in mind that the vigilance case which was lodged for 2 the same allegation for which the present proceeding was initiated has been dropped after submission of the final form on the ground of lack of evidence. So far the appeal of the petitioner is concerned, should be considered and disposed of as early as possible, in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)