IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.220 of 2007 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Versus ZAFARULLAH KHAN ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr Lalit Kishore, AAG-III. For the Respondent:- Mr. Banwari Sharma and Mr. Shiv Kumar. ***** 3. 15.5.2008. In the present review application, petitioners are seeking to draw attention of the Court as regards an error apparent on the face of the records to the extent of recording in the order of the Court dated 16th July, 2007 that the letter of the writ petitioner dated 10th October, 1996 was submitted by the writ petitioner in person. While passing the order dated 16th July, 2007, the Court did record as a fact that the said letter dated 10th October, 1996 was submitted in person by the writ petitioner. The learned counsel for the present petitioner draws our attention to the averments made in the writ petition that it has not been stated that the said letter dated 10th October, 1996 was submitted by the writ petitioner in person. Although in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed to the writ petition it was accepted that the letter of the writ petitioner dated 10th October, 1996 was received but, at - 2 - the same time, it was not stated that the same was received in person from the writ petitioner-respondent. That being the situation, there being no evidence that the said letter dated 10th October, 1996 was, in fact, submitted by the petitioner in person, recording of the said fact in the order dated 16th July, 2007 is an error apparent on the face of records and, accordingly, the order dated 16th July, 2007 is modified to that extent. It was submitted by the present petitioner that in view of acceptance of the fact that the petitioner was not present on 10th September, 1996 in person, that portion of the order dated 16th October, 2007 is also incorrect where the Court held that in the punishing order it was untruly stated that on 10th October, 1996, the appellant did not attend the proceedings. We accept such submission and, accordingly, correct the order dated 16th July, 2007 suitably. However, these corrections would have no ultimate bearing for the fact remains that on 10th October, 1996, the letter of the petitioner dated 10th October, 1996 was received by the Department and by the said letter dated 10th October, 1996, a request was made by the writ petitioner for an - 3 - adjournment and without addressing the said request, the punishment order was ultimately passed. In the present application it has been stated that despite all out efforts made the present petitioner could not locate the letter of the writ petitioner dated 10th October, 1996 and also could not trace the whereabouts thereof by referring to the various registers maintained by the present petitioners and, accordingly, insinuated that the said letter may not have been received at all. This contention, of course, at this stage cannot be permitted to be advanced in view of a clear-cut admission of receipt of the said letter in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the present petitioners submits that this Court should at least clarify that the departmental proceedings initiated by the charge sheet should be reached to its logical conclusion. It goes without saying that when a charge sheet has been issued and thereby a disciplinary proceeding has been initiated, the same must be concluded by passing a final order either punishing the delinquent or by absolving him, unless otherwise the charge sheet itself is set aside. Mere quashing of the punishment - 4 - order does not bring to an end the proceeding initiated by issuing a charge sheet. The review application is disposed of with the above clarifications. dk ( Barin Ghosh, J. ) ( Rekha Kumari, J. )