IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2636 of 2002 3 21.11.2008 Pramod Kumar Prasad, son of Shri Baijantri Prasad resident of village Basantpur, P.S.Mufassil, District Arrah VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Secretary to the Governor and Honorary Secretry, Bihar State Council for Child Welfare, Raj Bhawan, Patna 3. The Administrator, Bihar State Council for Child Welfare, Raj Bhawan, Patna 4. Officer-on-Special Duty, Bihar State Council for Child Welfare, Raj Bhawan, Patna 5. The Principal, Angarwari Training Centre, Bindwara Morh, Munger ------- For the Petitioner : Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : M/s Braj Kishore Pd. Sinha, GP 3 and Surya Kant Kumar, JC to GP 3 For Respondents : Mr Shivendra Kishore, Advocate 2,4 and 5 -------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the respondents. Petitioner was earlier dismissed from service by order dated 15.7.1999 contained in Annexure-5. Against that dismissal he came to this Court and his writ petition was disposed of by order dated 17.1.2001, contained in Annexure- 6. This Court noticed the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and has given its observation in paragraph 2 which is hereunder – “After hearing counsel for the petitioner I am of the opinion that absence of the petitioner amounts to misconduct. Further, no order granting leave for the absence period has been brought on record. However, 2 as the order terminating the service amounts to his removal from service, and the petitioner had been working on the post since 1987 giving him at least a semblance of permanence of service, I am of the view that regular proceeding ought to have been initiated. Accordingly, I permit the concerned respondent to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and take the matter to its logical end in accordance with law. The validity of the impugned order shall abide by the result of the proceeding.” The aforesaid observation and direction indicate two things- (1) After hearing the counsel for the petitioner this Court was of the opinion that absence of the petitioner amounts to misconduct and (2) that no order granting leave for the absence period have been brought on record. However, since formalities of the regular proceeding was not gone into, this Court directed the concerned respondent to initiate a departmental proceeding and bring the matter to its logical end in accordance with law. It was clearly observed that the validity of the impugned order of dismissal contained in Anenxure-5 was to abide by the result of the proceeding. The letter dated 6.12.2001 contained in Annexure- 14, was sent to the petitioner after conclusion of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner enclosing therewith a copy of the enquiry report. That letter is to the 3 effect that since the enquiry officer in his report dated 2.11.2001 (copy enclosed) had found the charges proved, the order of termination of petitioner’s service dated 15.7.1999 is allowed to stand. On behalf of the petitioner, a grievance was raised that he was not given an opportunity to represent against the enquiry report dated 2.11.2001 which was communicated to him along with impugned order contained in Annexure-14. However, on going through the enquiry report this Court finds that the findings of the enquiry officer are exactly similar to the observations of this Court already mentioned in Annexure-6 and there is no prejudice to the petitioner on account of opportunity not being given to protest against the enquiry report. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk