IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.710 of 2007 Vishnu Kant Pathak, son of Late Yugal Kishore Pathak, resident of Mohalla- Bare Ki Gali, Dira, Patna City, Patna- 800 008, the retired Junior Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No.1, Muzaffarpur … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary- Cum- Commissioner, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur 5. The Executive Engineer, Tirhut Canal Division No.1, Muzaffarpur ….. …. Respondents ----------- 02/ 19.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7 whereunder a sum of Rs. 2,92,557.99 has been directed to be recovered from him with further direction that petitioner shall not be entitled for any amount beyond the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension. Aforesaid order is challenged on the ground that without concluding the proceeding, punishment order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7 has been passed. 3. From perusal of the order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7, it appears that copy thereof 2 was given to the petitioner. In the light of the instructions contained in the order dated 17.12.2004 to recover the amount, the authorities issued letter No. 2672 dated 25.12.2004, Annexure-8 and proceeded to recover the amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner. Such statement is made in paragraph 25 of the writ petition. In spite of execution of the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2004, petitioner chose not to challenge the said order until he filed the present writ petition on 17.1.2007 without explaining the delay as to why he did not challenge the order dated 17.12.2004 by filing the writ petition, within reasonable time of recoveries made from the petitioner. 4. During the hearing of the writ petition, counsel for the petitioner submitted that copy of the order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7 was served on the petitioner during the hearing of contempt petition, which was disposed of under orders dated 29.11.2006, as such, petitioner chose to challenge the order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7 by filing the present writ petition on 17.1.2007. 5. In compliance of the order dated 3 17.12.2004, Annexure-7, recoveries were made from the petitioner in December, 2004 itself, as such, in my opinion, he had knowledge of the order dated 17.12.2004, Annexure-7, which is also evident from perusal of the said order as the same has been served on the petitioner, but petitioner instead of challenging the said order, kept litigating the matter in the contempt proceeding. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)