STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DURGA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL suffers from delay of 266 days and for condonation thereof an application (I.A. No. 2456 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay for the reasons set out in the application, we are of the view that the appeal has no merit.

(2.) THE counsel for the appellant fairly admits that there is no difference whatsoever with regard to allegations against the present respondent no. 1 and Ajit Kumar Srivastava. He also admits that in the disciplinary enquiry, Ajit Kumar Srivastava as well as the present respondent no. 7 has been punished by an order of censure and withholding of increments of three years with non -cumulative effect. It is also admitted by the counsel for the appellant that Ajit Kumar Srivastava challenged the punishment order in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 12822 of 2004) and the said writ petition was allowed by the Single Judge of this Court on 18.1.2006. The counsel further admits that the said order has attained finality, as the matter was not carried further by the State Government and its functionaries. In the backdrop of all these admitted facts when there is no distinguishing feature whatsoever between the case of the Ajit Kumar Srivastava and the present respondents, the Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in passing the impugned order.

(3.) APPEAL does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed accordingly.