IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1333 of 2010 1. ARVIND KUMAR S/O SRI BALMIKI RAM R/O VILL- NAGHAR, P.S- BIKRAM, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2/ 26/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State also. The wife of the petitioner lodged Rampur P.S. Case No.59/98 under Section-498A and lesser provisions of Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act against him on 14.6.1998. The petitioner is alleged to have evaded arrest for some time till he secured anticipatory bail from this Court. A Memo. Of Charges was issued to the petitioner on 17.3.2005 on two grounds. The first was the institution of the police case against him for harassing his wife and the second was for absconding on account of the criminal case, affecting Government work assigned to him. The second charge is not specific and does not set out any relevant dates. - 2 - Departmental proceedings were held. He was exonerated of Charge No.1 as the trial was pending. He was found guilty under Charge No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court that, in fact, he had not absconded and no sooner that he was granted anticipatory bail he made himself available. It was next contended that this period during which the petitioner is alleged to have absconded has been regularized on his application for leave. Learned counsel for the State opposed the application to submit that the petitioner never participated in the departmental proceedings and it remains a question of fact as to what was the period for which he absconded and what period has been regularized. If there remains any period of unauthorized absence, the order of punishment should not be interfered with. Without going into the merits of the matter, accepting the stand of the State this Court is satisfied that for unauthorized absence on account of a criminal case lodged against him by his wife the punishment of dismissal sought to be imposed is grossly disproportionate and not commensurate with the allegation. The order of punishment does not consider the - 3 - period for which the petitioner placing reliance on an order dated 17.8.2006 contends that it has been regularized. The impugned order dated 16.12.2009 is held to be not sustainable by the Court being grossly disproportionate to the charge. If the petitioner had a warrant of arrest against him, and took recourse to shelter till such time that he obtained anticipatory bail, he cannot be faulted with to the extent of dismissal. In any event of the matter, the allegation in the criminal case did not relate to any discharge of official duties. The order of punishment is accordingly set aside. The authorities are required to re- consider the quantum of punishment when they shall be required to adequately deal with and consider whether the petitioner has been granted any leave subsequently on an application made for the period that he is alleged to have absconded. Needless to state that any issue of unauthorized absence of the petitioner in the subject departmental proceedings leading to the order of punishment has to be confined in its application to the period commencing from the institution of the First Information Report and till the petitioner presented himself after obtaining anticipatory bail. The Court considers it necessary to make this observation on the - 4 - ground that read reasonably charge No.2 is confined to the specific period only and does not mention any other period of unauthorized absence. Let the respondents pass fresh appropriate orders within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)