IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1751 of 2010 1. RAM BALI RAM RANJAN S/O LATE ROOP NARAIN RAM R/O VILL&P.O.NANAURA, P.S.GHORASAHAN, DISTT-EAST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEEER, HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CHAPRA CIRCLE, SARAN 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SIWAN DIVISION, SIWAN …………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********** 2 10/05/2010 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 14.08.2008 (Annexure-5). This order was passed on the basis of an application filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 25.04.2008. It appears from Annexure-5 that the petitioner has remained absent from work since 2003 although the petitioner claims that he had joined on 27.02.2006. A departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner which the petitioner is avoiding and as such, the application that the petitioner should be paid his salary and be granted promotion has been rejected. It appears that the departmental proceeding is still pending. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not served with the memo of charges and, therefore, he was unable to file show cause in the departmental proceeding. It is further submitted that his joining should be accepted, as he would not be able to be present at the proceeding if he is 2 not permitted to join. There are well settled principles with respect to conduct of Departmental Proceeding, such as adherence to principles of natural justice, supply of enquiry report, etc. No counter affidavit has been filed, so the Court cannot pass a positive order, but I am sure the concerned authority must have taken due precautions in the matter, by giving notice to the petitioner at his home address. It is apparent from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner was absent since 2003. The status of the Departmental Proceeding is not known. All these facts will have to be considered by the authorities while conducting the enquiry, if not already concluded. This Court has only to decide as whether the petitioner is entitled to his salary and grant of promotion in view of the fact that he remained absent from work since 2003 and a departmental proceeding is pending against him. The answer obviously would be that he is not entitled for promotion. As far as the grant of salary is concerned, the petitioner has not worked since 2003, therefore, obviously this aspect of the matter can only be decided in the departmental proceeding itself. This application is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)