Patna High Court
Bisheshwar Singh, Retired Assistant … vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company … on 30 June, 2025
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4764 of 2020
======================================================
Most. Vijaya Laxmi Devi, Wife of Late Bisheshwar Singh, Retired Assistant
Electrical Engineer, resident of Village - Kushwaha Colony Diggi Kala East,
Near Hazipur Block, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Diggikala, East, District Vaishali,
Hazipur, PIN Code - 844101.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. through its Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800021
2. The North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. through its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800021
3. The Deputy General Manager(Admn/HR), North Bihar Power Distribution
Company Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna- 800021
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-06-2025
Heard Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Advocate for
the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Tiwary, learned Advocate for the
North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is made to
an order no. 472 dated 14.05.2010 by which the pension of the
erstwhile employee (original petitioner) came to be reduced by
25%, with a further direction that the petitioner shall not be
entitled to any benefit, except subsistence allowance during the
period of suspension.
3. Before parting with the case it would be pertinent
to note that during the pendency of the writ petition, the sole
petitioner died on 30.07.2022; subsequently an interlocutory
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
2/9
application came to be filed on behalf of the wife of the
erstwhile employee and her name has been substituted by this
Court, who has been pursuing this writ petition.
4. Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, learned Advocate for the
petitioner referring to the materials available on record primarily
contended that while the (deceased) petitioner was holding the
post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in the Bihar Power Holding
Company Ltd., he was subjected to a departmental proceeding,
which came to be initiated vide resolution no. 2366 dated
05.10.2002
on the alleged negligence in duty, in not detecting
the delay in crediting of the amount in the board’s account by
the cashier (Account Assistant) who is responsible for
maintenance of cashbook and cheque register in terms with the
Board Circular No. 125 dated 31.03.1962.
5. While assailing the impugned order learned
Advocate for the petitioner primarily contended that it is the
admitted position, while the departmental proceeding was
pending consideration, in the mean while, the (deceased)
petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2004 and without converting
the departmental proceeding under Rule 43(b), they proceeded
further and inflicted the punishment of reducing 25% of the
pension, which is wholly without jurisdiction. There is no
specific order converting the proceeding under Rule 43(b),
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
3/9
hence the punishment inflicted under Rule 43(b) is
unsustainable in law. Various other points have been urged to
sustain the challenge to the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, at the outset, a preliminary
objection has been raised with regard to delay and laches in
approaching the Court, inasmuch as, the impugned order of
dismissal dated 14.05.2010 came to be challenged in the year
2020.
7. Mr. Kunal Tiwary, learned Advocate for the
respondent placed reliance upon a full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Shambhu Saran Vs. The State of Bihar &
Ors., (2000) 1 PLJR 665 and contended that no specific order is
required to converting the proceeding under Rule 43(b). A
supplementary counter affidavit came to be filed and from the
averments made in paragraph no. 3 it appears that on being
aggrieved with the order of punishment passed by the
respondent company, the erstwhile employee had preferred
appeal, which also came to be rejected vide order contained in
letter no. 271 dated 03.02.2011.
8. Reliance has also been placed on a decision
rendered by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs.
Harendra Arora & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 392. Referring thereto it
is contended that every infractions of statutory provisions could
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
4/9
not make the consequent action void and/or invalid. The Court
observed that in respect of procedural provision other than that
of fundamental nature, the theory of substantial compliance
would be available and in such cases objection on this score
have to be judged on the touchstone of prejudice. The test would
be, whether the delinquent officer had or did not have a fair
hearing.
9. Learned Advocate for the petitioner refuted the
contention and submitted that the order passed by the appellate
authority has never been served upon the (deceased) petitioner;
had the order been served upon him, he would have certainly
assailed the same in the writ petition itself. So far the delay in
filing of the present case is concerned, drawing the attention of
this Court to averments made in paragraph no. 6 of the writ
petition, it is submitted that the petitioner had all along been
representing before the authorities concerned, but the concerned
authority has never considered the same. Since the copies of
earlier representation was lost during the journey, therefore the
copy of the same could not be brought on record.
10. Having considered the submissions set forth;
while exercising prerogative discretionary writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court must consider
the point of delay and laches; and if the same is found, the Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
5/9
should be reluctant to grant extraordinary relief to those who
approach the Court belatedlty. It would be apposite to
encapsulate the relevant extract of decisions rendered in the case
of Karnataka Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman
and Managing Director and Anr v. K. Thangappan and Anr.
[(2006) 4 SCC 322] :-
“6. Delay or laches is one of the
factors which is to be borne in
mind by the High Court when they
exercise their discretionary
powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution. In an appropriate
case the High Court may refuse to
invoke its extraordinary powers if
there is such negligence or
omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right as
taken in conjunction with the
lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to
the opposite party. Even where
fundamental right is involved the
matter is still within the discretion
of the Court as pointed out in
Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller
of Imports and Exports [(1969) 1
SCC 185 : AIR 1970 SC 769] . Of
course, the discretion has to be
exercised judicially and
reasonably.
7.What was stated in this regard
by Sir Barnes Peacock in Lindsay
Petroleum Co. v. Prosper
Armstrong Hurd [(1874) 5 PC 221
: 22 WR 492] (PC at p. 239) was
approved by this Court in Moon
Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher [AIR
1967 SC 1450] and Maharashtra
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
6/9SRTC v. Shri Balwant Regular
Motor Service [(1969) 1 SCR
808 : AIR 1969 SC 329] . Sir
Barnes had stated:
“Now, the doctrine of
laches in courts of equity is not an
arbitrary or a technical doctrine.
Where it would be practically
unjust to give a remedy either
because the party has, by his
conduct done that which might
fairly be regarded as equivalent to
a waiver of it, or where by his
conduct and neglect he has though
perhaps not waiving that remedy,
yet put the other party in a
situation in which it would not be
reasonable to place him if the
remedy were afterwards to be
asserted, in either of these cases,
lapse of time and delay are most
material. But in every case, if an
argument against relief, which
otherwise would be just, is
founded upon mere delay, that
delay of course not amounting to a
bar by any statute of limitation,
the validity of that defence must be
tried upon principles substantially
equitable. Two circumstances
always important in such cases
are, the length of the delay and the
nature of the acts done during the
interval which might affect either
party and cause a balance of
justice or injustice in taking the
one course or the other, so far as
it relates to the remedy.”
11. This Court while dealing with an identical issue
involving delay and laches, has emphasized and reiterated the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
7/9
settled legal position that if the Court while exercising
extraordinary writ jurisdiction finds that the claims raised are
stale and delay is unexplained on the part of the litigant, it
deserved to be thrown overboard at the very threshold. It would
be apposite to refer relevant paragraphs of the decision rendered
in the case of Ravi Ranjan Kumar Gupta vs. The State of
Bihar & Ors. [C.W.J.C. No. 16745 of 2021] :-
“12. In the case of City and
Industrial Development
Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir
Bhiwandiwala and Others
[(2009) 1 SCC 168], the Apex
Court has cautioned that while
dealing upon the jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the
Constitution, is duty bound to
consider whether “(a)
adjudication of writ petition
involves in complex of disputed
question of fact and whether they
can be satisfactorily resolved; (b)
the petition reveals of materials
facts;(c) the petitioner has any
alternative or effective remedy for
the resolution of the dispute; (d)
person invoking the jurisdiction is
guilty of unexplained delay and
laches;(e) ex facie barred by any
laws of limitation; (f) grant of
relief is against public policy or
barred by any valid law; and host
of other factors.”
13. Delay or laches is one of the
factors which is borne in mind by
the High Court when they exercise
their discretionary powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
8/9
if there is such negligence or
omission on the part of the
applicant to assert his right has
taken in conjunction with the
lapse of time and other
circumstances, causes prejudice to
the opposite party. The High
Court may refuse to invoke its
extraordinary power in an
appropriate case, is the
observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of
Karnataka Power Corporation
Limited through its Chairman
and Managing Director and
Another v. K. Thangappan and
Another [(2006) 4 SCC 322].
14. As a Constitutional Court, it
has a duty to protect the rights of
the citizen but simultaneously it is
to keep itself alive to the primary
principle that when an aggrieved
person, without adequate reason,
approaches the Court at his own
leisure or pleasure, the Court
would be under legal obligation to
scrutinize whether the lis at a
belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted,
delay comes in the way of equity
[vide Chennai Metropolitan
Water Supply and Sewerage
Board and Others v. T.T. Murli
Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108]”.
12. In the light of the aforesaid settled legal position
and the materials available on the record prima facie this Court
is of the opinion that the impugned order of dismissal came to
be passed in the year 2010 and the present writ petition is filed
much belatedly after a decade. The grounds/reasons mentioned
Patna High Court CWJC No.4764 of 2020 dt.30-06-2025
9/9
in paragraph no. 6 to the writ petition, also does not find merit.
13. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed on account of delay and laches.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 02.07.2025 Transmission Date NA