IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1031 of 2010 IN CWJC 17758/2009 WITH I.A. NO. 5623 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1031 of 2010 ============================================ 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, JAIL, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JAIL SUPERINTENDENT, BHAGALPUR JAIL, BHAGALPUR 4. THE ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL, JAIL CUM- CONDUCTING OFFICER, HOME (JAIL) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA Versus SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD S/O LATE KAILASH PRASAD R/O NAYA BAZAR, P.S. BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR ============================================ Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Lalit Kishore,AAG-3 Mr. R.K. Priyadarshi For the Respondent: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate ============================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 05. 27.09.2010 Reg: I.A. No. 5623 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant-State of Bihar for condonation of delay of 43 days occurred in filing the Letters 2 Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 Heard the learned advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeal is heard and decided today. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 8th March 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17758 of 2009, the State of Bihar and Others have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the challenge to the impugned judgment and order in the present Appeal is confined to the observation made by the learned Single Judge in respect of the merger of the orders. The learned Single Judge has held that, “if the appellate authority exceeded his jurisdiction in law and imposed an illegal order of punishment, the order dated 15.10.2008 has to be held to be invalid when consequentially the merged order automatically collapses.” Mr. Lalit Kishore has submitted that if at all the order made by the appellate authority was required to be set aside, the Appeal had to be remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and decision afresh. He has submitted that the doctrine 3 of merger cannot be invoked to set aside the original order of punishment made by the disciplinary authority. Learned Advocate Mr. Giri has appeared for the respondent-delinquent. He has submitted that not only the appellate authority had committed grave irregularity but also the order of punishment made by the disciplinary authority was illegal and bad. We refrain from examining the order of punishment on merits. We do agree with Mr. Lalit Kishore. In view of the finding that the appellate authority had exceeded his jurisdiction, the Appeal should have been remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and decision afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, We allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 8th March 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1775 of 2009 is set aside to the extent the learned Single Judge has held; “The original order of punishment dated 18.4.2007 merged into the appellate order dated 15.10.2008. The original order of punishment no more remains in existence. If the appellate authority exceeded his jurisdiction in law and imposed an illegal order of punishment, the order dated 15.10.2008 has to be held to be invalid when consequentially the merged order automatically collapse……..The entire order of punishment collapses.” We confirm the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellate authority had exceeded his jurisdiction 4 while considering the appeal preferred by the respondent delinquent and in so far as the order dated 15th October 2008 made by the appellate authority has been set aside. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is modified to that extent. The departmental appeal preferred by the respondent- delinquent against the order of punishment dated 18th April 2010 to the appellate authority is restored and is remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and decision afresh. The appellate authority will decide the appeal in accordance with law within three months from today, in any case not beyond 31st December 2010. The Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. Interlocutory Application No. 5624 of 2010 stands disposed of. Parties will bear their own cost. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)