IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.273 of 2009 1. DR. PREM KUMAR VIDYARTHI S/O LATE SHIV NARAYAN RAI MOH- SOUTH MANDIRI, P.S. BUDHA COLONY, DISTT. PATNA…….petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE HAVING HIS OFFICE OF VIKAS BHAWAN, P.S. SACHIWALYA, DISTT. PATNA 2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE HAVING HIS OFFICE AT VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW SECRETARIAT, P.S. SACHIWALAYA, DISTT. PATNA 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER SARAN, CHAPRA, DISTT. CHAPRA 4. THE ENQUIRY OFFICER-CUM-REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR SARAN, CHAPRA, DISTT. CHAPRA 5. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) BIHAR, PATNA HAVING HIS OFFICE AT BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, P.S. SACHIVALAYA, DISTT. PATNA ………..Opposite parties ---------- 04. 30-06-2010 Heard the parties in respect of I.A. No. 1548 of 2010 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. For the reasons mentioned therein the delay of 14 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. 2. The I.A. stands allowed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the charge which was found proved during enquiry was unauthorized absence for the period 23.04.1993 to 04.12.1997 and hence the writ court ought to have interfered with the order of 2 punishment whereby the authorities inflicted two punishments, one being non payment of salary for the period of absence from the duty beginning from 23.04.1993. 5. In effect, the submission is that non payment of salary should have been confined to the period till 04.12.1997 under orders of the writ court and by not granting such relief the writ court committed an error and has permitted punishment to cover a period which was not subject matter of the charge. 6. Technically, the aforesaid plea appears to be attractive but the judgment of the writ court as well as that of the Division Bench which is under review clearly shows that this issue had to be considered by the writ court because of arguments advanced under which salary was claimed for the period after 04.12.1997 till superannuation of the petitioner on 31st December, 2000. The petitioner by its stand called upon the writ court to decide the said issue which was decided on the basis of materials on 3 record including the official records which were called for and have been discussed in detail by the writ court. 7. When this issue was raised again before the Division Bench, on the last page of the judgment the Division Bench has addressed itself to this issue and has held that there is no iota of evidence in support of such a claim of the writ petitioner and no such stand was taken even in the show-cause as discussed by the learned single Judge that he was present on duty between December, 1997 to December, 2000. 8. We find no good reason to interfere with our earlier order in exercise of review jurisdiction when there appears no error or any material to warrant review. 9. This application for review is, therefore, dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Anjana Prakash,J.)