IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5745 of 1997 RAM PRAVESH SINGH, son of late Shio Das Singh, resident of village – Parenyama, P.O. Vazirpur, Via – Vikram, P.S. Vikram, District – Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. D.I.G. of Police, Munger Range, Munger. 4. S.P., Munger. ----------- 03. 5.8.2010 Petitioner stood dismissed from service vide order contained in Annexure-3. The background to the dismissal is that the petitioner went on casual leave for ten days on 9.8.1985 and thereafter remained absent for 740 days. Obviously such a prolonged absence without authorization compelled the authorities to hold a departmental enquiry. It has also emerged from the records that during the absence of the petitioner he was involved in two criminal cases, one relating to murder, which is Vikram P S Case No. 264 of 1986 and the other was Vikram P S Case No. 45 dated 10.2.1986 under sections 144, 448 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The reason for the absence of the petitioner was that he was made prime accused and he was behind the bars during the said period. The above background of absence and non-information was considered good enough to dismiss the petitioner from service. Counsel for the petitioner takes a hyper technical view that charge was primarily absence and for absence, dismissal is not the punishment which ought to be given. But the learned counsel for the petitioner is not willing to address the Court or inform the Court as to what happened to the case which was instituted against the petitioner 2 for murder. He wards off the issue by pleading or feigning lack of instruction on this issue but he categorically submits that in the matter of theft he has been acquitted. The police force can very well do without people of such conduct and background. The reason for his absence was not because of certain cogent and reasonable ground but because petitioner was involved in criminal activity while he is away from duty unauthorisedly. The finding of unauthorised absence has been proved in the enquiry. Dismissal is least which respondents could have resorted to. This is not fit case for interference more so in absence of any clear assertion that the petitioner was not convicted in the case of murder instituted against him. The writ application is dismissed. Rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)