Patna High CourtCWJC/2457/2014dismissed

Surendra Kishore Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-17Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2457 of 2014 =========================================================== Surendra Kishore Sinha Son of Late Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha Resident of Mohalla- Konark Cinema Road, Near Gayetri Mandir Campus, Shashtri Nagar, Munger, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District and Sessions Judge, Munger

3. The Registrar, Civil Court, Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. INDU BHUSHAN, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanghamitra Ghosh, A.C. to GP-15 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-09-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present.

The writ petition has been filed for quashing the punishment order dated 13.9.2004 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Munger whereby the monetary benefits admissible to the petitioner for the period 15.11.2003 to 14.1.2004 has been withheld. A copy of such order is impugned at Annexure-3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing No. 6 dated 11.1.2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Munger dismissing the review application of the petitioner.

Facts of the case reflects that the petitioner was holding the post of Saristedar and was visited with the punishment in question on

Patna High Court CWJC No.2457 of 2014 dt.17-09-2016 13.9.2004 vide Annexure-3. He retired from the said post on 30.6.2009 i.e. five years later but he did not choose to question the order. It is three years after superannuation that on 12.9.2012 he filed a review application which has been dismissed by the order dated 11.1.2013 impugned at Annexure-5. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court.

Having heard learned counsel for the State, considering the materials on record, in my opinion, no cause for indulgence is made out and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on grounds of suffering from the vice of gross laches and unexplained delay. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U