IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5301 of 2009 Saraswati Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 22.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to be the wife of the employee concerned. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the employee, and after submission of the enquiry report an order of punishment for dismissal came to be passed on 19.3.1990. The enquiry report reveals that it contains serious charges of financial misdemeanor and embezzlement. It is submitted that the petitioner as the wife was unaware of this order as her husband went missing from 1986 itself. She was made aware of the order for punishment in the year 2008 only after she filed a writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6076 of 2007 for grant of retirement dues of her husband. The writ application came to be disposed on 26.9.2008 with a batch of analogous cases giving general direction on the issue of pension that has been rejected by the order dated 15.1.2009 intimating that since he had been dismissed from service on 19.3.1990, the amount of Provident Fund 2 and Gratuity was being sent to her and the amount of Group Insurance shall be paid after the amount outstanding against his name was deposited. If the husband of the petitioner went missing in 1986, there is no explanation forthcoming why she moved for pension in the year 2007. Additionally, the order of dismissal dated 19.3.1990 was duly communicated to her husband as is evident from the copy marked to him at the end. The address on which it has been communicated is the same as the petitioner mentions in the cause title of the writ application. There is a presumption under Rule 114(e) of the Evidence Act that all official acts have been duly and regularly performed. The law shall therefore presume that the letter of dismissal had reached its destination and even if the husband was absconding or missing the petitioner was fully aware of the same. The presumption is of course rebuttable. No such material in rebuttal has been placed except the statement that she has not received the letter. The Court finds it very difficult to adjudicate on an order of termination issued in 1990 and which attained finality, now in the year 2009 when the subject matter of the termination is also no more available to explain what may or may not have 3 transpired at that point of time. The Court in the entirety of the facts and circumstances finds it difficult to entertain the present writ application on grounds of delay and laches. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)