IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1182 of 2009 DR.PREM KUMAR VIDYARTHI aged about 67 years, son of Late Shiv Narayan Rai, resident of Mohalla- South Mandiri, Police Station- Budha Colony, District- Patna. …Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, having his office at Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Police Station- Sachivalaya, District- Patna. 2. The Additional Secretary, Health and Family Welfare having his office at Vikas Bhawan, New Secretariat, Police Station- Sachivalaya, District- Patna. 3. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Saran, Chapra, District- Chapra 4. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Regional Deputy Director, Saran, Chapra, District- Chapra. 5. The Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna, having his office at Birchand Patel Path, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Patna … Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, Advocate For the respondent nos.1-4 : Mrs. Archana Sinha, AC to GP 14 For the respondent no.5 : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 2/ 10.09.2009 Heard counsel for the parties. For the reasons indicated in the limitation petition, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. With the consent of counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission since all the records are available. The appellant, who was a doctor, had remained absent for a period from 23.4.1993 to 4.12.1997 and even thereafter but has claimed that subsequently he had joined and submitted his joining report after 4.12.1997 but the same had not been formally accepted. Be that as it may, the charge was to the effect that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 23.4.1993 to 4.12.1997 and in the departmental enquiry it was found that the present appellant had - 2 - remained absent unauthorisedly for the period beyond 4.12.1997. The punishment which was imposed was to the effect that no salary would be paid for the period of absence from 23.4.1993 and further withholding of 50% of pension. Against the said order of punishment, the appellant had filed CWJC No.15257 of 2005. The learned single Judge in the impugned judgment after referring to the contentions in details came to the conclusion that in fact the punishment appears to be grossly inadequate keeping in view the fact that the writ petitioner (present appellant) remained absent unauthorisedly for a long period. Counsel for the petitioner has once again vehemently contended that during the departmental proceeding principles of natural justice had been violated as well as one Baccha Prasad was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant in course of departmental enquiry. It appears that the learned single Judge has devoted his detailed attention on this aspect and has come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove that he was prejudiced on account of non-examination of the said Baccha Prasad during the departmental enquiry. The basic fact remains that admittedly, the appellant was absent from 23.4.1993 till 4.12.1997 which was the specific charge and even the materials on record indicate that even after 4.12.1997 the petitioner did not submit his joining report. Even assuming that the petitioner submitted his joining after 4.12.1997, but no work was taken - 3 - from him. Thus, even according to the admission of the appellant he had remained absent for about three years and nine months from 23.4.1993 to 4.12.1997, for which sufficient explanation was required to be given by the appellant himself. Moreover, quoting the entire show cause the single Judge has concluded that the appellant has not said a single word that he was present on duty between December, 1997, to December, 2000, i.e. till his retirement. There is not an iota of evidence in this regard and, therefore, the attack on the impugned order was devoid of any merit. The plea of the appellant having been rightly rejected by the departmental authority, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in repelling the contention of the appellant. In fact, it has been observed by the learned single Judge that the punishment appears to be grossly inadequate, inasmuch, as the appellant, being a doctor, had to help the society even by serving in rural areas but instead he remained absent for a long period. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. JA/- (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)