Inordinate Delay of Ten Years Precludes Writ Jurisdiction Challenge Against Service Punishment Orders

The petitioner, appointed as a Chowkidar at Tharthari Police Station on September 9, 1998, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the release of two increments and two terms of Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) benefits.

He also challenged Letter No. 112 dated January 16, 2012, issued by the District Magistrate, Nalanda, which imposed a punishment of "censure" and "stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect"

The State raised a preliminary objection regarding the 10-year delay in challenging the punishment order, which had already been implemented and completed by 2014

The State further contended that the petitioner’s service record showed unauthorized absences and dereliction of duty, disqualifying him from A.C.P. benefits

1. Whether a writ petition challenging a punishment order after an inordinate delay of 10 years is maintainable.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of A.C.P. benefits despite allegations of service breakage and unauthorized absence.

The Court applied the principle of laches regarding the challenge to the 2012 punishment order

Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, specifically Rule 2(c), which defines "complaint" to include matters related to increments, A.C.P., and M.A.C.P.

Rule 3, which prescribes the procedure for filing such complaints via online mode

The Court observed that the punishment order dated January 16, 2012, was never challenged in appeal or before the High Court at any earlier occasion and had reached finality in 2014

Consequently, it held that the petition was not maintainable on this point due to the 10-year delay

Regarding the claim for A.C.P. benefits, the Court noted that the State Government had established a specific statutory mechanism under the 2019 Rules to redress grievances related to service benefits

Under Rule 2(c), A.C.P.-related disputes are explicitly categorized as "complaints" falling under the jurisdiction of the concerned grievance redressal authority

Therefore, rather than adjudicating the merits of the service record, the Court determined that the petitioner must first exhaust this alternative statutory remedy

Regarding the A.C.P. benefits, the Court directed the petitioner to file a complaint under the Bihar Government Servant Grievance Redressal Rules, 2019, before the concerned authority within 30 days

The authority was directed to decide the matter strictly within the timeframe specified in the Rules

The writ petition was disposed of with these directions