IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8926 of 1996 PRAHLAD CHOUBEY son of Late Remadhar Choubey, resident of Village- Neema, P.S. Nasriganj, District-Rohtas ------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary and Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Commissioner-cum- Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The Under Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 6. The Chief Engineer, Master Planning, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 7. The Superintending Engineer, Waterways Circle, Water Resources Department, Garhwa, Palamau 8. The Executive Engineer, Kadhwan Embankment Division Bhawnathpur. -------------Respondents. ----------- 4. 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ application was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction upon the respondents to promote him to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 27.12.1978. He also wanted a direction for demand of salary for the period 5.6.1986 to 9.7.1989. The challenge was also made to an order of punishment passed against him which is dated 5.6.1986 Annexure-1 to the writ application. Learned counsel representing the State at the outset states that it is misplaced kind of writ application filed by suppressing certain basic and important facts at a belated 2 stage as an afterthought. A statement has been made on the basis of the facts that the petitioner at no point of time seriously participated in the departmental enquiry conducted against him for serious omission and commission for which punishment came to be awarded on 5.6.1986. That order is now being challenged in the garb of seeking promotion by filing the present writ application in the year 1996. There is no serious explanation for not challenging the order of punishment earlier and a misleading statement has been made that he had filed an appeal and was waiting for its out come. There is no evidence of such an assertion. The respondents have categorically denied in the counter affidavit that any appeal of any kind was filed by the petitioner. In absence of cogent explanation to the objection raised by learned counsel for the State obviously the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the order at such a belated stage in the garb of promotion which in any way was dependent upon the punishment which was imposed in terms of Annexure-1. It is a misplaced writ application lacking bona fide. It is dismissed. Anand Kr. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)