IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.463 of 2011 In CWJC No. 6734 of 2010 With I.A. No. 2090 of 2011 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.463 of 2011 ============================================== Kishore Kant Singh - Appellant (s) Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondent(s) ============================================== Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. Y.V. Giri Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh Mr. Shyama Kant Singh For the Respondent : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad, GP-7 For the Respondent No. 10: Mr. Umesh Kr. Mishra ============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 02. 16.03.2011 Reg: I.A. No. 2090 of 2011 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of five days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. The appellant-writ petitioner in above C.W.J.C. No. 6734 of 2010 has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 18th January 2011 made by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the 2 appellant secured employment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on the basis of the forged credentials. When this fact was disclosed to the respondent authorities, after holding due enquiry the Deputy Development Commissioner by his order dated 11th May 2009 ordered removal of the appellant from service. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the appellate authority under Section 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Condition of Service and Appointment) Rules, 2006. While the matter was pending before the appellate authority, the appellant resigned from service and informed the appellate authority that the appellant did not intend to pursue the matter further. Nevertheless, the appellate authority decided the appeal on merits, upheld the removal of the appellant from service and directed that the salary paid to the appellant be recovered and that a criminal complaint be lodged against him. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed above C.W.J.C. No. 6734 of 2010 before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge holding the writ petition to be frivolous has dismissed the writ petition and has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellant. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Y.V. Giri has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that once the appellant resigned from service, he could not have been prosecuted nor can the salary paid to him for the services rendered be recovered. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in 3 holding the writ petition frivolous and in imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the appellant. We see no merit in the argument advanced by Mr. Giri. We may note that the appellant had been ordered to be removed from service on 15th July 2009. Once he was removed from service he could not have resigned from the service. His so-called resignation is of no consequence. The appellant walked out from the service. Be that as it may, the appellant did not pursue the appeal nor did he withdraw the appeal preferred by him. In our opinion, the appellate authority was absolutely justified in deciding the appeal on merit, in dismissing the same and in directing recovery of salary as well as institution of criminal prosecution. In above view of the matter, we see no error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The cost imposed by the learned single Judge is also justified. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)