IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3965 of 2005 SMT.SUDHA SINHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 8 9.5.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Writ application was filed by Naveen Kumar for quashing of order contained in memo no. 1257 dated 17.2.2005, whereby Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, P.W.D. Building, Patna has dismissed him from his service as a punishment awarded in the departmental proceeding. Petitioner had alleged that the departmental proceeding was conducted without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and without following the procedure under the rules. When the Petitioner was in jail the second show cause notice was issued. He could not appear before the authorities and submit his show cause. Completely ignoring this fact; the dismissal order has been passed. During the pendency of the writ application the original petitioner Naveen Kumar died. Interlocutory application no. 5004 of 2007 was filed by his mother for substituting her name. Another interlocutory application no. 3467 of 2011 was filed 2 by Babita, widow of Naveen Kumar for substituting her name also in place of original petitioner. Both of them were substituted in place of the original petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order and the inquiry report, I find that the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner by furnishing a copy of charge contained in memo no. 3767 dated 29.10.2001. Petitioner absconded for two years. Despite repeated intimation, he did not choose to participate in the departmental proceeding. This was the reason that even subsistence allowance could not be paid to him, because he had not authorized any one to receive subsistence allowance on his behalf. In the year 2003 he was taken into custody in connection with the criminal case, which has been initiated against him on the ground of defalcation of Government money of Rs. 3,18,839/-. The inquiry report and second show cause notice was sent at his residential address, which was received by his mother. Since, no second show cause filed by the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order was passed in the departmental proceeding, which is confirmed by the Appellate authority. 3 Considering the latches on the part of the original petitioner, allegations regarding departmental proceeding being conducted without following the procedure, has nomerit. Sufficient time was allowed to the petitioner. He himself did not choose to participate in the departmental proceeding, only after following all formalities final order was passed. There is no merit in this application, as such it is dismissed. However subsistence allowance which remained unpaid to the original writ petitioner, during the period of suspension, shall be paid to his widow, Babita, substituted petitioner, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. A. Kumar ( Mridula Mishra, J.)