IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2902 of 2004 BAIDYANATH DUBEY @ BAIJ NATH DUBEY, son of Sri Sheo Pratap Dubey, resident of village Taakanpurn, P.O. Kusunbhara, P.s. Surjapura, District – Rohtas. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police, B.M.P. Central Zone, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commandant, B.M.P.-2, Dehri. ----------- 03. 14.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was a constable under the Bihar Military Police and had to be chargesheeted because after being granted 14 days leave he never reported for duty for more than 274 days. Chargesheet is annexure-1. Thereafter the authorities proceeded against him and order of punishment contained in annexure-3 came to be passed. The appellate authority concurred with the punishment of dismissal passed against him. In the writ application petitioner has pleaded that he had lost his mental balance and he had to obtain medial advice and treatment. In support thereof he has annexed some prescriptions and certification issued by one Dr. B. B. Singh, who is stated to be an Ex. Associate Professor of Psychiatry and retired from Ranchi Mental Hospital. From reading of the narration of the order of punishment as well as appellate order which has come to be passed, it is evident that respondents had no option left but to impose the punishment in question on him on the findings arrived at. This has to be viewed in 2 the light of the fact that petitioner had the habit of long disappearance from service and for abandoning the service on many occasions in the past for which he had been imposed punishment of major kinds three times and minor punishment on four occasions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once an employee has already been punished for his bad conduct in the past, the same ought not to be made a consideration for imposition of punishment in future. But the fact is that petitioner has not been dismissed from service for the past conduct. The past conduct has been noted in the order which is only a reflection of lack of devotion which the petitioner has and absence of discipline despite the service in which he was engaged. The Court cannot overlook this basic fact that the service record of the petitioner while in service with the Bihar Military Police shows repeated absence from duty for a long periods without any leave or authorization is a serious matter, specially when the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force. The current charge being of similar nature invited the punishment which cannot be said to be excessive. The explanation offered by the petitioner by way of medical certificate palpably seems to be false. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that large number of such prescriptions are being annexed in many cases and it has come to the notice of the court that it is issued by the same doctor. To avoid the consequences of punishment most constables who either has been dismissed or compulsorily retired from service for long absence have obtained 3 certificate of mental illness from the same doctor as a defence. There is no merit in the writ application. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)