IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12590 of 2009 GOPI KRISHNA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 07.10.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner who is a Panchayat Secretary/ Panchayat Sewak was subjected to a departmental proceeding. The enquiry report dated 28.5.2008 exonerated him. At the stage of consideration by the disciplinary authority, on a difference of opinion, the report of exoneration was not accepted when punishment has followed dismissing him from service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the proceeding after submission of the enquiry report was by an authority not competent to do so, being without jurisdiction, the order of punishment is vitiated. Other issues were also sought to be argued to assail the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the parties are however not at issue that orders have been passed after participation of and hearing the petitioner and that the remedy of appeal is available to him before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 163 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner prefers an appeal the Appellate Authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. Section 163 (3) of the act contains a limitation period of 90 days for preferring of the appeal. The writ application is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within a period of one month from today the Appellate Authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation. It is further clarified that this court has not gone into merits of the case and it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all issued before the Appellate Authority who shall decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of such memo of appeal. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)