IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10956 of 2010 1. Jai Kishore Singh S/O Late Rameshwar Singh R/O Vill.- Mahavir Tola, P.S. + Distt.- Arrah Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Government Of Bihar Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Director, Investigation Project Preparation Directorate Patna- Cum-Conducting Officer, Anishabad, Patna ----------- 2. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 3.1.2007 visiting him with censure to be entered in his character roll for the years 2000-2001, stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect, recovery of 1/3rd of Rs. 19,00,200/- and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension. Counsel for the petitioner sought to urge various grounds to assail the order of punishment vis-à-vis the conduct of the proceedings, the enquiry report and the order of punishment. Counsel for the State submitted first that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of Appeal under Rule 24 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Alternatively, it was submitted that if the impugned order of punishment was passed on 2 3.1.2007 and the petitioner did not avail the alternative statutory remedy within the period of limitation he cannot resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 after more than three years on 20.5.2010 to grant him indulgence as it may amount to giving him an advantage for his own lapses. The writ petition does not plead any justification whatsoever for the delay before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. Part-7 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules provides for the statutory remedy of appeal within 45 days. Rule 25 adequately provides for condonation of any delay in preferring appeal beyond the limitation prescribed. If the petitioner files an Appeal within a period of 45 days from today along with an application for condonation of delay, let the latter be considered in accordance with law keeping in mind that issue of limitation involves exercise of discretion according to the facts and circumstances of a case and the sufficient cause shown. The reluctance to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction at this stage cannot be a consideration while considering any application for condonation of delay. It is expected that the appeal shall be considered expeditiously at 3 the earliest. It shall be open for the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief pending disposal of the Appeal. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)