IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11358 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Anish Kumar S/O Late Jagdish Prasad R/O Vill & P.O.Oeyab, P.S.Asthama, Distt-Nalanda, At Presently Posted As Revenew Karamchari At Circle Office, Giriyak, The Then Biharsharif, Distt-Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate Nalanda At Biharsharif 3. The Additonal Collector Nalanda At Biharsharif 4. The Deputy Collector , Land Reforms Biharsharif Cum-Conducting Officer 5. The Circle Officer Biharshariff Circle, Biharshariff .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 17-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 10.6.2010 withholding three increments with cumulative effect and entries to be made in the service book accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no copy of the enquiry report was served before passing the final order of punishment. Learned counsel for the State points out that a second show cause notice was duly replied to by the Patna High Court CWJC No.11358 of 2010 (2) dt.17-11-2011 2 petitioner. He does not raise any objection with regard to non-supply of enquiry report. Either the enquiry report had been supplied or alternately he was in know of the same and no prejudice has been caused to him by non-supply of the same. Additionally, the petitioner has an adequate remedy of appeal available before the authorities against the order of the District Magistrate. All issues sought to be raised presently can well be examined in the appeal. If there is an alternative statutory remedy available, there has to be an extraordinary situation for the Court to usurp the same by exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court is not persuaded to do so. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2010. The writ petition has been filed well within the period of limitation for an appeal within 45 days i.e. on 15.5.2007. If the petitioner files an appeal before the appropriate authority within a maximum period of 30 days from today, let the appellate authority consider the same without going into the issues of limitation preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of such memo of appeal. The application is disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)