IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4519 of 2008 RAMJI MISHRA, CONSTABLE NO. 456, SON OF SHRI YADUBANSH MISHRA, RESIDENT OF PITAMBARPUR, P.O. + P.S. SHEO SAGAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. 3. I.G. DARBHANGA RANGE, DARBHANGA. 4. D.I.G., KOSHI RANGE, SAHARSA. 5. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SUPAUL. 6. DISTRICT PROSECUTION OFFICER, SUPAUL. 7. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BHOJPUR-CUM-ENQUIRY OFFICER. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS ******** 2 19.4.2011 The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexure-6, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Supaul and Annexure-7, passed by the D.I.G., Koshi Range, Saharsa by which the punishment inflicted by the Superintendent of Police, Supaul has been confirmed by the D.I.G., Koshi Range, Saharsa. The petitioner was working as a constable under the District Prosecution Officer, Supaul. He applied for leave to fix his daughter’s wedding which could not be finalized and, therefore, he asked for extension from the District Prosecution Officer, Supaul. The District Prosecution Officer, Supaul advised him to file a leave application before the Superintendent of 2 Police, Supaul. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for leave which was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Supaul on 4.4.2005. For one reason or the other, the petitioner could not join back in office and remained absent for 98 days. The leave application filed by the petitioner remained pending before the Superintendent of Police, Supaul without any order either accepting or rejecting it. After rejoining, the petitioner filed an application that he be granted the pay for the period he was absent, which led to institution of the present proceeding. From Annexure-6, it would appear that the Superintendent of Police, Supaul has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner ought to have filed the leave application before him. During the proceeding the District Prosecution Officer was examined and he has specifically stated that he had advised the petitioner to file leave application before the Superintendent of Police, Supaul. It has also been stated by him that the petitioner works diligently and performs his 3 duty sincerely and has recommended that a compassionate view should be taken in the facts of the case. The Superintendent of Police, Supaul has awarded punishment which is withholding of pay for the period of absence and for stoppage of increment for one year which is equivalent to two black marks. Against the order of the Superintendent of Police, Supaul, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Koshi Range, Saharsa. The D.I.G. rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Counsel for the State submits that there is a provision for memorial before the Director General of Police, Bihar. I accordingly, direct that the petitioner may file an appeal before the Director General of Police, Bihar, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, who will consider the case of the petitioner keeping in mind that the petitioner did apply for leave before the Superintendent of Police, Supaul which remained pending before him. If the leave was not to be granted then the matter ought 4 to have been disposed of within a day or two, so that the petitioner could have joined his duty as expeditiously as possible. The said application of the petitioner may be disposed of within a period of three months on its receipt. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)