JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, A.C.J. – I.A. No.3324 of 2018 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1048 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in para nos.5 to 7 thereof, there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay. 3. We, therefore, condone the delay of 1048 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. I.A. No.3324 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No.422 of 2017 5. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner) being aggrieved and feeling dis-satisfied by the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2014 passed in W.P.(S) No.1791 of 2013 whereby the order of dismissal passed by the respondent dated 24th August, 2011 has been held as valid one. 6. This appellant is a delinquent constable who has committed first misconduct on 2nd January, 2011 to the effect that he was assigned with duty to escort the train, but, he was found sleeping in the barrack and he was not found in the train at all, where his duty was assigned. So far as second charge is concerned, on 4th January, 2011 he molested a school going girl. 7. Enquiry was conducted and adequate opportunity of being heard was given to this appellant-delinquent. Enquiry Officer has given a report and on the basis of the Enquiry Officer''s report disciplinary authority has passed an order on 24th August, 2011 of dismissal of this appellant as the charges levelled against this appellant-delinquent were held as proved. 8. Departmental appeal was also preferred by this appellant and the same was also dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 2nd February, 2013. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no error has been committed by the respondents in holding the departmental enquiry. Adequate opportunity of being heard was also given to this appellant and both the charges levelled against this appellant have been held as proved. 10. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant upon the merit of the enquiry and mainly on the ground that the girl who is alleged to have been molested has not been examined. The said is not the requirement at all. 10. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant upon the merit of the enquiry and mainly on the ground that the girl who is alleged to have been molested has not been examined. The said is not the requirement at all. Even if the molested girl is not examined, charges levelled against this appellant can be proved with the help of other evidences on record. We are not sitting in appeal against the Enquiry Officer''s report. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the evidence on record, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion. It cannot be said that there was no evidence and the conclusion has been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. 11. Looking to the fact that this appellant-delinquent was working with the disciplinary force as a constable, it was his duty when he was escorting the train "not to sleep". There is a dereliction in the duty. There is negligence in performing the duty by this appellant. So far as second charge is concerned, he is not befitting to hold the post. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the punishment inflicted upon this appellant is unreasonably excessive nor it can be said that the same is shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1791 of 2013 dated 5th December, 2014. We see no any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge and hence there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.