ORAL ORDER NAVIN SINHA, J. I.A. No. 3899 of 2013 has been filed to condone delay of 616 days in filing the Appeal. The respondents have opposed the prayer for condonation. 2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 23.06.2011 allowing CWJC No. 4936 of 2008. The learned single Judge quashed the purportedly pending departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent on 09.04.1991, considering that he superannuated on 31.01.2000, opining that in the facts, delay of 20 years in completing the departmental proceedings was unreasonable and arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, withholding ten percent pension. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Writ Petition was disposed on 23.6.2011 without a counter affidavit. The Deputy Secretary, ignorant of the disposal, sent statement of facts for filing of counter affidavit on 16.8.2011. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Department sought opinion to file Civil Review No. 244 of 2012 which was also dismissed on 20.03.2013. The Civil Review was filed as the order dated 23.06.2011 was a result of misinformation/withholding of information by the respondents as also due to non-filing of counter affidavit. Repeated reminders had been sent to the Director General of Police to file counter affidavit. On 05.09.2011 a letter was received from his office that since the issue related to a departmental enquiry and terminal benefits steps should be taken by the concerned Department. The correspondence between the Home Department and the Director General of Police caused delay in filing the counter affidavit. In the circumstances, filing of the Letters Patent Appeal and the review was necessary to apprise the Court of the communication gap and the developments between the filing of the Writ Petition and the passing of the order dated 23.06.2011. The delay may therefore be condoned. 4. The second submission was that the respondent had not disclosed and suppressed true facts in CWJC No. 4936 of 2008. The departmental proceeding had continued after his retirement, as it stood converted to under 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules which was not brought to the attention of the Court. The respondent never cooperated in the departmental proceedings. Despite being supplied documents asked for, he did not file his written statement. An ex parte enquiry report was submitted on 23.11.2009. A second show cause notice was issued on 19.01.2010 why 50% of the pension be not forfeited on the basis of the enquiry report. The respondent never cooperated in the departmental proceedings. Despite being supplied documents asked for, he did not file his written statement. An ex parte enquiry report was submitted on 23.11.2009. A second show cause notice was issued on 19.01.2010 why 50% of the pension be not forfeited on the basis of the enquiry report. It was replied to by the respondent on 06.08.2010 during the pendency of his writ application. The Bihar Public Service Commission had approved the proposal for forfeiture of 50% pension also, and the Chief Minister had concurred on 30.7.2011. 5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the explanation furnished for the delay is not day to day much less does it furnish any reasonable and sufficient explanation. Time and again, it has been held that official bureaucratic delay is no ground to condone delay. It was next submitted that no counter affidavit was filed to the Writ Petition. It was for the appellants to bring on record subsequent developments that may have taken place. If they had been prohibited from proceeding with the enquiry by order dated 23.06.2011, any developments in the meantime by submission of an ex parte enquiry report and reply to a second show cause notice are irrelevant as they automatically collapsed consequent to the setting aside of the proceedings itself. This is reconfirmed by the dismissal of the review application where these facts were sought to be brought on record by the appellants. There is no challenge to the order dated 20.03.2013 dismissing Civil Review No. 244 of 2012. The Memo of Appeal has been filed belatedly only to overcome the institution of MJC No. 4887 of 2012 for non-compliance of the order of the Writ Court and only after personal appearance was directed in the contempt proceedings on 20.03.2013, the Appeal was filed on 01.04.2013. 6. We have considered the submissions. The Respondent while serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet (Vigilance) was proceeded with departmentally for abuse of powers during investigation in Vigilance Case 26/89. 7. The Writ Petition was filed on 18.03.2008 and disposed on 23.06.2011, three and half years later. Not even an apology of an explanation has been furnished either in Civil Review No. 244 of 2012 or in the Memo of Appeal or in I.A. No. 3905 of 2013 why a period of three and half years was considered insufficient to file counter affidavit. Not even an apology of an explanation has been furnished either in Civil Review No. 244 of 2012 or in the Memo of Appeal or in I.A. No. 3905 of 2013 why a period of three and half years was considered insufficient to file counter affidavit. The appellants cannot shift the burden for concealment of facts on the respondent alone. We purposefully refrain from any observation or opinion why the counter affidavit may not have been filed. 8. The Writ Petition was disposed on 23.06.2011. Civil Review No. 244 of 2012 was filed on 26.05.2012 and dismissed on 20.03.2013. MJC No. 4887 of 2012 appears to have been filed on or about 06.03.2013. It was disposed on 19.06.2013, as no one appeared in view of the pendency of this Appeal. In the contempt application, personal appearance of the Principal Secretary was directed on 20.03.2013, the matter was to be listed on 03.04.2013. The Letters Patent Appeal was then filed on 01.04.2013. 9. Sequence of events or the manner in which the appellants have conducted themselves right from the institution of the writ application with failure to file counter affidavit compels us to extract the observations with regard to the tardy manner in which government cases are conducted by their officers noticed in (1994) 2 SCC 600 [Union of India v. Rahul Rasgotra] as follows:- “14. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to place on record our deep distress at the manner in which the cases on behalf of the Government are generally conducted even in this Court and also when the Government comes to this Court to overcome the consequence of an adverse order made against it. We do so with a feeling almost of despair since our constant lament orally and, at times, even in writing has so far evinced no appropriate response for improvement….” 10. The application for condonation of delay, even if we were to ignore any day to day explanation, does not contain a semblance of sufficient cause, rather it depicts a sorry and unfortunate state of affairs in which government cases are conducted by the officers at all levels unmindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them by the government that they would act in the best interest to protect the affairs of the government. We are sorry to observe that it reflects complete indifference to responsibility in discharge of duties. We are sorry to observe that it reflects complete indifference to responsibility in discharge of duties. The explanation for alleged official delay sought to be furnished for 616 days does not appeal to us. 11. In (2012) 3 SCC 563 [Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.] considering the explanation for bureaucratic official impersonal delays in government appeals, declining to condone delay of 427 days it was observed:- “28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.” 12. In (2012) 12 SCC 465 [Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik v. Rajmal Lakhichand & Anr.], declining to condone delay of 317 days only, directions were given to hold an enquiry to be conducted by a senior officer to fix responsibility on officer(s) responsible for causing delay in preferring the Appeal. In (2012) 12 SCC 465 [Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nasik v. Rajmal Lakhichand & Anr.], declining to condone delay of 317 days only, directions were given to hold an enquiry to be conducted by a senior officer to fix responsibility on officer(s) responsible for causing delay in preferring the Appeal. In our opinion, the present was a fit case for directing an enquiry by a very senior functionary of the State Government for the manner in which the case had been conducted right from the stage when the counter affidavit was declined to be filed. We however refrain from doing so for reasons which we set out hereinafter. We are satisfied that the delay does not deserve to be condoned as no sufficient cause has been made out. 13. Even while we decline to condone the delay, the conduct of both the parties in not having been fair to the Court by placing proper and correct facts, the fact of the matter remains that there is an unchallenged and unquestioned ex parte enquiry report dated 23.01.2009 to the knowledge of the respondent, followed by a second show cause notice replied by him and final orders of punishment. There is no occasion for us to make any pronouncement on the ex parte enquiry report dated 23.01.2009 and the subsequent order of punishment which till today remains judicially unchallenged and has attained finality more particularly after the present order. 14. The Appeal is dismissed.