IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16190 of 2007 MD.MASIHUDDIN, son of later Md. Ayub, resident of Mohalla – Milki, P.s. Arrah Town, District – Bhojpur, presently resided at near B.D.O. Office, P.S. Buxar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Chief Secretary, Bihar. 2. The Director/Secretary, Raj Bhasha Urdu Directorate, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Partna. 3. The Collector, Arwal at Arwal. 4. The Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. The Collector, Buxar at Buxar. 6. The Block Development Officer, Arwal at Arwal. 7. The Block Development Officer, Sarmera, District – Nalanda. 8. The Block Development Officer, Buxar. 9. The Regional Manager, Magadh Ciurcle, Gaya, State Bank of India, Gay. 10. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jehanabad. ----------- 02. 25.06.2010 Issuance of certain show cause notice to the petitioner for not properly accounting for a sum of Rs.1,69,970/- at the time of giving charge as a Prakhand Nazir, in the district of Arwal compelled the petitioner to approach the High Court. The averment in the writ application is that petitioner has offered his explanation with details of accounts including the expenditure which was made from time to time, which are legal and justified. The same has not been acted upon and the issue is pending for many a years. Because of pendency or non-conclusion of the issue petitioner is facing difficulty in drawing his salary of the new post on which he has been transferred and even the benefit of promotion, which is time-bound in nature, is not being granted to him. Learned counsel representing the State submits that if he is granted some time and indulgence he will be in a 2 position to file detailed counter affidavit and explain the situation. The Court is not inclined to do so keeping in view the fact that the writ application was filed way back in the year 2007 and no counter affidavit has been filed over a period of 3 years. Further since the issue is not being decided or adjudicated upon by this Court, looking at the nature of the grievance raised by the petitioner no purpose would be served by adjourning the matter. Ultimately it is the respondent who has to take a decision on the basis of the show cause and explanation which has been offered by the petitioner soon after the so-called notice and explanation in terms of annexure-6 and 6/1. Since the matter relates to the year 2007 the Court is of the opinion that the concerned authority will find time from his busy schedule looking into the matter and may give opportunity to the petitioner in person to understand the issue with supporting material and take decision with regard to so-called explanation which has been asked for from the petitioner. The Court expects a decision in this regard preferably within a period of four moths from the date of communication / production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the above direction. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J )