IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7717 of 2011 MITHILESH PRASAD SINGH @ MITHLESHWAR PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAIMANGALA, P.S. SHEIKHPURA(SIRARI) DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA. …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. 3. THE DEPOT SUPERINTENDENT, BHAGALPUR DEPOT OF BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 4. THE PASSENGER MANAGER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION OF BIHAR State ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BHAGALPUR. For the petitioner :Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha For the Corporation :Mr.Nand Kr. Singh ----------- 04. 22.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. Petitioner assails the order dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure-4), passed by Respondent-Administrator placing him under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding/enquiry. He also seeks quashment of memo of charge served on him on the same day (Annexure-3). Petitioner, during the relevant time, was posted as Conductor, but was discharging the duty of Time Keeper. In a surprise check, it was noticed that without any application he was absent from duty from 3rd May, 2010. Said matter was reported whereafter the impugned order was passed putting him under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding. Simultaneously, the petitioner was served with a 2 memo of charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure-6, submits that the competent authority (Divisional Manager) had, on his application, granted him earned leave with effect from 01.05.2010 to 30.06.2010 by order no. 248 and communicated to all concerned by memo no.1131 dated 31.5.2010. It is thus submitted that the charge is groundless. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which is placed on record. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that Annexure-A to the counter affidavit would show that the petitioner was present on duty and signed the attendance roll/register on 1st and 2nd of May and thereafter he was marked absent continuously for six days. His continued absence was noticed and reported which resulted in initiation of proceeding followed by service of memo/article of charge(s). It is next submitted that petitioner manoeuvred and procured the order sanctioning earned leave by the Divisional Manager subsequently on 31.05.2010. Referring to Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the Divisional Manager has also been put on notice to explain the circumstances. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally followed by service of memo of charge, this Court would not go into the legality and/or correctness of the said charge which has to be proved in the enquiry in presence of the delinquent(petitioner). 3 However, this Court would not permit protraction/procrastination of the proceeding for a long time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause to the memo of charge has already been filed by the petitioner and yet no step thereon has been taken by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the authorities will ensure completion of the proceeding within three months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court while declining to grant relief, as prayed for in this application, directs the respondents to conclude the proceeding within three months from today, failing which the order of suspension passed by the respondents against the petitioner shall stand revoked and the petitioner shall be deemed to be in active service unless a fresh/separate order is passed in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that petitioner shall fully co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the proceeding. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction/observation. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )