IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.128 of 2010 JAY KRISHNA BHINDWAR @JAI KRIS, jai Krishna Bhindwar Son of late Mintri Bhindwar,Resident of Village-Sugapatti, police Station Phulparas, District-Madhubani. At present Posted as Executive Engineer (Monitoring) Magadh Road, Circle Road, Construction Department, Gaya. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.The Deputy Secretary Road Construction Department Bihar, Patna-Cum-Chief Vigilance Officer Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.The Engineer-in-Chief, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.The Chief Engineer, N.H.Wing, Road Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 6.Superintending Engineer, N.H. Circle, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 2 27/1/2010 I.A. No.598 of 2010. This is an application for condonation of delay of 13 days. Having heard Mr. Prabhash Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel for the State, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient grounds do exist for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A. is accordingly allowed. 2 L.P.A. No.128 of 2010. As we have condoned delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. As the respondents have already entered appearance, no further notice need be issued. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is finally heard. In this intra-Court appeal the challenge is to the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.578 of 2008, whereby he has declined to interfere with the order of punishment imposed on the appellant. Be it noted, the punishment was for stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect and censure to be entered in his A.C.R for 2003-2004. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge it is noticeable that he has adverted to the contentions and perused the notice to show cause and the explanation proferred as also the order passed by the disciplinary authority. We have also perused the order passed by the disciplinary authority and on scrutiny of the same we are satisfied that adequate reasons have been ascribed before 3 refusing to accept the explanation of the incumbent and, therefore, we do not perceive any error in the order of punishment that has been passed by the disciplinary authority which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. At this juncture, Mr. Prabhash Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has not considered the prayer made in the writ application pertaining to grant of A.C.P. He has invited attention to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the counter affidavit. The said paragraphs read as under:- “19.That with respect to the statement made in para-12 of the writ application, it is stated that petitioner’s case was considered for grant of Ist A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.1999 and 2nd A.C.P. with effect from 11.12.04 in the Departmental screening Committees meeting held on 18.9.07 and the petitioner was found fit for first A.C.P. w.e.f. 9.8.99 but was found unfit for 2nd A.C.P. due to adverse vigilance report and as soon as the concurrence of Cabinet is received, he will be granted first A.C.P. with effect from 9.8.99. 20.That the case for grant of 2nd A.C.P. will be considered on expiry of effect of punishment issued vide departmental notification No.4850 dt. 5.4.07.” 4 On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs there is no shadow of doubt that according to the statements made in the counter affidavit the appellant is to be granted first A.C.P. w.e.f. 9.8.99 and hence, benefit of first A.C.P. is extendable with effect from the date of that order. Accordingly it is directed that the conversation in that regard be made and the benefit be extended within a period of two months. As far as second A.C.P. is concerned, as undertaken in the counter affidavit the same shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. In the result, the L.P.A. is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dipak Misra, C.J.) Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)