IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA L.P.A. No. 377 of 2011 IN C.W.J.C. No. 12696 of 2010 With I.A. No. 1643 of 2011 In L.P.A. No. 377 of 2011 ==================================================== Shambhu Prasad, S/o Late Ramji Prasad, R/o Village- Khanetu, P.S.- Takari, District-Gaya. ……Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commandant Bihar Military Police, Muzaffarpur. 4. The D.I.G., Bihar, Patna 5. The Inspector General of Police. 6. The Superintendent of Commission, Muzaffarpur. ………. Respondents/Respondents ==================================================== APPEARANCE : For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ray Shivaji Nath, A.A.G 3. Mr. Shambhu Nath, AC to AAG 3. ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 01.03.2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 1643 of 2011: This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 40 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. 2 Re. L.P.A. No. 377 of 2011: Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29th September 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 12696 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. In the year 1993, the appellant was appointed as a police constable in the Bihar Military Police. On verification it was found that the appellant had suppressed the factum of criminal prosecution pending against him. In view of the same, vide order dated 19th June 1995 he was removed from the service. In the year 2009 the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case. Since his acquittal he approached the respondent authority for reinstatement in service which came to be rejected on 29th May 2010. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred the above writ petition. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the removal of the appellant from service on the ground of concealment of the requisite information was justified. The subsequent acquittal in criminal case was of no consequence. We agree with the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit (R.M.Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran,J)