IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.635 of 2008 DEO CHANDRA JHA @ DEV CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 25/8/2008 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 20th of August, 2007 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9053 of 2005 declining to interfere with the order accepting the resignation, has preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant was employed as Peon with the Bihar State Financial Corporation. By order dated 23/1/2002 on charges of disobedience of order, indiscipline, misconduct and dereliction of duty, he was placed under suspension. He submitted his resignation on 24.1.2002 inter alia stating that for personal reasons, he does not want to continue in the service of the Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). By order dated 24.1.2002, the order putting him under suspension was revoked and the appellant’s resignation from the service of the Corporation was accepted with effect from the afternoon of 24.1.2002. Aggrieved by the same, appellant preferred writ application as late as on 28.7.2005. By reason of the impugned order, the writ application has been dismissed. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, appearing on behalf of the appellant draws our attention to the order dated 24.1.2002 whereby the appellant’s resignation has been accepted and - 2 - contends that it has been accepted by the Officer on Special duty and this itself renders the order accepting the resignation illegal. He points out that the authority to accept the resignation, is the Managing Director. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it has been stated that the impugned communication was issued by order of the Managing Director. Mrs. Anita Sinha, G.P-IX, appears on behalf of the State. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Jain. The order impugned clearly indicates that the resignation of the appellant has been accepted by order of the Managing Director. Not only that, the Corporation in the counter affidavit has clearly stated that the impugned order was issued by order of the Managing Director. There is nothing on record to doubt the aforesaid assertion of the respondent Corporation. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to dismiss the writ application also on the ground of delay and laches. Undisputedly, the resignation of the appellant was accepted by order dated 24.1.2002. The appellant had chosen to file the writ application on 28.7.2005. The learned Single Judge found this delay as impediment in way of the appellant. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not err in dismissing the writ application. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is - 3 - dismissed accordingly. S.Ali (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)