- (1.) The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A.No.2187 of 2020 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 235 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Heard. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the averments made in the interlocutory application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, I.A.No.2187 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 235 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.719 of 2019 The instant intra-court appeal is under Clause-10 of Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna directed against the order/judgment dated 24.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5008 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are required to be referred herein, which reads as hereunder:- The appellant-writ petitioner while working as Constable under the Central Industrial Security Force at Bokaro, was suspended vide order dated 06.10.2008 in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Subsequently, charge-sheet was issued on 19.11.2008 with a direction to appear before the Enquiry Officer and put-forth his defence, in pursuance thereto, writ petitioner has appeared before the Enquiry Officer and submitted his response in his defence by denying the charges leveled against him but the Enquiry Officer has found the reply unsatisfactory and found the charge proved which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment by withholding the annual increment of two years with cumulative effect. The said order has been affirmed by the appellant authority as also the revisional authority. The writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders of punishment which has been declined to be interfered with, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
(3.) Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the order of punishment suffers from material irregularities since the defence which has been put-forth by the writ petitioner has not properly been considered by the Enquiry Officer as also the nature of offence is not so serious warranting the disciplinary authority to impose punishment which is major in nature which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge, hence, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law.;