Patna High Court
Shri Ramesh Prasad BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed on the grounds of inordinate delay, laches, and the persisting stigma of dereliction of duty.
Summary
The petitioner, a former Forest Range Officer, was dismissed from service in 2000 following departmental proceedings and criminal charges. He was acquitted in one criminal case in 2017 but had another conviction for misappropriation, which was later set aside in 2017, though the court described his conduct as dereliction of duty. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2026 seeking reinstatement, back wages, and pension benefits, invoking the liberty granted in an earlier 2001 order to approach the State after acquittal. The State argued that the cause of action arose in 2017 and the petitioner’s nine‑year inaction amounted to inordinate delay and laches. The Patna High Court, relying on Supreme Court and its own precedents on delay, held that the petitioner was not fully exonerated and that the delay barred equitable relief, and consequently dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and back wages after acquittal in the criminal case.
- Whether the nine‑year delay in filing the writ petition constitutes inordinate delay and laches sufficient to dismiss the petition.
- Whether the finding of dereliction of duty in the second criminal case precludes full exoneration and reinstatement.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 409, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Subjects
- reinstatement
- service dismissal
- delay
- laches
- dereliction of duty
- civil writ jurisdiction
- forest service
- criminal acquittal
- back wages
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4812 of 2026
======================================================
Shri Ramesh Prasad Bhagat S/o Shri Narsingh Bhagat, Former Range Officer,
Chainpur Forest Depot Range, Gumla State Trading Division, Government of
Bihar, Village Sonapur Bazar, District Araria, Bihar 854316.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Environment,
Forest and Climate Change Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
800015.
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Environment, Forest and Climate
Change Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 800015.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Govinda, Advocate
Ms. Preety Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (26)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-03-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting
aside the impugned Order No. 3302 dated 07.11.2000 issued by
Respondent No. 1, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary,
Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna, as contained in Annexure P-1 to
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
2/14
the writ petition, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was
dismissed from service. The petitioner has further prayed for
reinstatement to the post of Ranger Officer or to an equivalent
post in the Forest Service, along with continuity of service. The
petitioner has also sought a direction for payment of full back
wages from the date of suspension till the date of retirement,
along with restoration of all consequential retiral benefits,
including pension, gratuity and leave encashment, by treating
the service of the petitioner as continuous and unblemished,
together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner had earlier challenged the aforesaid order of
dismissal dated 07.11.2000 (Order No. 3302) passed by
Respondent No. 1 in CWJC No. 3207 of 2001, which was
disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2007, granting liberty to the
petitioner that in the event of his acquittal in the criminal case,
he may approach the State Government by bringing such
acquittal to its notice, whereupon the State Government may
consider his request for recall of the dismissal order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner was duly selected through the Bihar Public
Service Commission and appointed as a Gazetted Officer in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
3/14
Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar. It is
submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties with utmost
sincerity and served with distinction in various forest divisions.
It is further submitted that subsequently a complaint was lodged
against the petitioner along with other Range Officers, pursuant
to which Gumla P.S. Case No. 225 of 1994 was registered. On
the basis of the said case, trial commenced before the learned
Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Special
(Vigilance) Case No. 22(B) of 1996 arising out of Gumla
Vigilance P.S. Case No. 225 of 1994 under Sections 409/120B,
467/120B, 468/120B, 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. In the said case, the petitioner was
acquitted and held not to be guilty for the above charges vide
order dated 30.08.2017.
5. It is further submitted that on allegations of
serious irregularities, the petitioner was placed under suspension
vide order dated 10.07.1995 contained in Memo No. 2419 and
thereafter a charge-sheet dated 21.07.1995 was issued against
him. The petitioner challenged the said suspension by filing
CWJC No. 1905 of 1996, which was disposed of with a
direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
4/14
proceedings within a period of four months. Upon conclusion of
the departmental proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from
service vide order dated 07.11.2000 contained in Order No.
3302. The petitioner thereafter challenged the said dismissal
order by filing CWJC No. 3207 of 2001.
6. Learned counsel further submits that G.R. Case
No. 620 of 1995 (T.R. No. 22 of 2004) was also instituted
against the petitioner on the allegation of misappropriation of
timber/wood from Dokapat Cooperative Society for personal
gain. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla for the
offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Against the said judgment, the
petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2004 before the
learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gumla,
which was dismissed and the conviction was affirmed vide
judgment dated 02.09.2005. Being aggrieved, the petitioner
preferred Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2006 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Jharkhand. It is submitted that the said revision
application was finally allowed vide judgment dated 06.11.2017,
whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to set aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
5/14
judgment of conviction and sentence and discharged the
petitioner from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
7. It is further submitted that thereafter the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Bihar, seeking
recall of the dismissal order in light of his acquittal on merits
and for reinstatement in service with full back wages and all
consequential service benefits. However, till date, no decision
has been taken on the said representation, causing grave
prejudice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the present writ petition.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has raised a preliminary objection. He has
contended that the cause of action arose in favour of the
petitioner in the year 2017 itself; however, the petitioner
remained dormant and failed to take any steps for a considerable
period of about nine years. It is submitted that after such
inordinate and unexplained delay, the petitioner has now sought
to revive the matter by filing a representation, purportedly in
light of the observations made earlier in the year 2007 in CWJC
No. 3207 of 2001.
9. In response thereto, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen, presently
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
6/14
aged about 73 years, and due to his advanced age and attendant
circumstances, he was unable to effectively pursue the matter
earlier. It is thus contended that the delay is neither intentional
nor deliberate, but attributable to bona fide reasons beyond the
control of the petitioner.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires to
this Court that the petitioner was implicated in two criminal
cases. The first case, being Gumla P.S. Case No. 225 of 1994,
subsequently registered as Special (Vigilance) Case No. 22(B)
of 1996, was instituted under Sections 409/120B, 467/120B,
468/120B, 471/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section
13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. In the said case, the petitioner was ultimately
acquitted of all the charges vide judgment dated 30.08.2017.
However, in another case, namely G.R. Case No. 620 of 1995
(T.R. No. 22 of 2004), instituted under Section 409 of the Indian
Penal Code, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine
of Rs. 1,000/-. The said conviction and sentence were affirmed
vide judgment dated 02.09.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No.
29 of 2004 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
7/14
Judge, Gumla. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal
Revision No. 3 of 2006 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand. The said revision was allowed vide judgment dated
06.11.2017, whereby the Hon’ble Court was pleased to set aside
the judgment of conviction and sentence and discharged the
petitioner from the liabilities of his bail bonds.
11. For better appreciation of the case, this Court
deems it appropriate to refer to paragraph 5 of the order passed
in CWJC No. 3207 of 2001, wherein liberty was granted to the
petitioner to approach the State Government by bringing on
record the factum of his acquittal in the criminal case. Para 5
whereof reads as under :-
“5. This writ application is,
accordingly, disposed of with observation that if at
all petitioner is acquitted in the aforesaid criminal
case on merits then he shall be at liberty to invite
the attention of the State Government about his
acquittal in the criminal case so that the State
Government may consider the request of the
petitioner for recalling the dismissal order,
Annexure -1.”
12. From the aforesaid observation, it further
transpires that the petitioner, pursuant to such liberty, submitted
a representation before Respondent No. 1, namely, the
Additional Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
8/14
Change Department, Government of Bihar, Patna on 16.01.2026
(Annexure P/10).
13. This Court also finds it relevant to refer to the
operative portion of the judgment dated 06.11.2017 passed in
Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2006, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Jharkhand observed that, at best, the allegation against
the petitioner could be termed as dereliction of duty while
functioning as an in-charge Forest Range Officer, which was
essentially a supervisory post which reads as under :-
“The conviction of the petitioner is
only with respect to the allegation of
misappropriation of Rs. 1,060,00/- issued in
support vouchers which has been totally falsified
by the statement of P.W.3 Kumud Prasad. The
prosecution had brought a number of instances
in the First Information Report claiming
misappropriation but could not prove any of the
said allegations except the misappropriation of
Rs. 1,060,00/- which as has been stated above
have been nullified by the evidence of P.W.3.
Even if the statistics in the vouchers had not
been mentioned the same cannot be presumed to
construe criminal misappropriation by the
petitioner.
At best it can be termed to be
dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner
who was the In-charge Forest Range Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
9/14
Chainpur during the relevant period of time and
the same was a supervisory post as has been
reiterated by P.W.1. The Investigating Officer
had also not been examined which has caused
prejudice to the defence. The conviction of the
petitioner based on assumption on certain facts
which have not been able to be proved by the
prosecution automatically signals giving the
benefit of doubt to the petitioner.”
14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts and
the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand,
it transpires that although the petitioner was acquitted in Gumla
P.S. Case No. 225 of 1994 due to failure of the prosecution to
establish the charges, the findings in the second case stand on a
different footing. In the latter case, even while setting aside the
conviction, the Hon’ble Court observed that the conduct of the
petitioner amounted, at best, to dereliction of duty.
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to be
completely exonerated, and a certain degree of stigma continues
to attach to his service record on account of failure to discharge
supervisory duties effectively.
16. Another significant aspect which dissuades this
Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction is the inordinate delay
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
10/14
and laches on the part of the petitioner. The cause of action
arose in the year 2017; however, the petitioner approached the
authorities only in the year 2026, after a delay of about nine
years. No plausible or satisfactory explanation has been
furnished in the writ petition to justify such delay. With regard
to delay and laches, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai
Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors. vs. T.T.
Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, has elaborately
dealt with the issue in paragraphs 16 and 17, which are relevant
for the present case and are reproduced hereunder:
“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ
court is required to weigh the explanation
offered and the acceptability of the same.
The court should bear in mind that it is
exercising an extraordinary and equitable
jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has
a duty to protect the rights of the citizens
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 scrutinise
whether the lis at a belated stage should be
entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
11/14
in the way of equity. In certain
circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate
delay would only invite disaster for the
litigant who knocks at the doors of the
court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction
on the part of a litigant- a litigant who has
forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of
time" and second, law does not permit one
to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does
bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.
17. In the case at hand, though there has
been four years' delay in approaching the
court, yet the writ court chose not to
address the same. It is the duty of the court
to scrutinise whether such enormous delay
is to be ignored without any justification.
That apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more significance
as the respondent employee being
absolutely careless to his duty and
nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the
responsibility had remained unauthorisedly
absent on the pretext of some kind of ill
health. We repeat at the cost of repetition
that remaining innocuously oblivious to
such delay does not foster the cause of
justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
12/14
Such delay may have impact on others'
ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag
others into litigation which in acceptable
realm of probability, may have been treated
to have attained finality. A court is not
expected to give indulgence to such
indolent persons- who compete with
"Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip
Van Winkle". In our considered opinion,
such delay does not deserve any indulgence
and on the said ground alone the writ court
should have thrown the petition overboard
at the very threshold.”
17. This Court also deems it necessary to take into
consideration the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court dated 11.03.2024 in the case of Gyasuddin @
Gyasuddin Khan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 13306 of 2023, wherein the issue of delay and
laches has been elaborately dealt with. In the said case, the writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had
approached the Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay
of 26 years.
“11. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and for the
reasons mentioned hereinabove in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
13/14
preceding paragraphs, the present writ
petition stands dismissed, being barred by
the principles of res judicata. This Court
further finds that the present writ petition is
fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay
and latches as well, inasmuch as the
petitioner has approached this Court
belatedly after an unexplained delay of 26
years. Thus considering the principles laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a
catena of judgments, as referred to herein
above in the preceding paragraphs, as also
considering the maxim- “equity aids the
vigilant and not those who slumber on their
rights”, this Court is of the view that since
the petitioner has not filed the present writ
petition within a reasonable period of time,
this Court is not under any legal obligation
to entertain the writ petition, especially
considering the fact that the petitioner has
not offered any reason whatsoever, for the
enormous delay which has taken place in
approaching this Court, hence, the present
writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
delay and latches as well.”
18. In view of the aforesaid two points, as well as
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court finds that the present
Patna High Court CWJC No.4812 of 2026 dt.31-03-2026
14/14
case is devoid of merit on account of delay and laches.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
19. Interlocutory Application/s, if any, also stands
dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 01/04/2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.