Letters Patent Appeal No.101 OF 2001 -------- Against Judgment and order dated 4.1.2001 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.121 Of 2001. ---------- SHEOJI PRASAD------------------------------Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS-------------------Respondents ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Barin Ghosh & Jayanandan Singh, JJ: In a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant, he was dismissed. The allegation against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding was of unauthorized absence. The appeal preferred against the order of dismissal having been dismissed he approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The same having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellant went on leave for twelve days on 19.3.1999 and thereupon on 29.7.1999 he came to join and at that time alleged that he had fallen ill and was under the treatment of a Doctor. However, it later on transpired that he was, while on leave, taken into custody in connection with a case initiated under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he came to join his duty only after being released on bail. 3. In the writ petition, it was not contended that the enquiry was held without notice to him, but it was contended that the appellate authority did not give him an opportunity of oral hearing. The - 2 - records of the case did not reflect that any prayer was made for oral hearing. In the circumstances, by the Judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant appearing in support of the appeal very fairly submitted that after going through the records of the case and the memorandum of appeal, he found that it is not an arguable case. He, however, submitted that it is possible that in the criminal case, that was initiated against the appellant, he was ultimately exonerated or if not, may be exonerated in future. He submitted that in the event appellant is so exonerated he may be permitted to make a representation. 6. In the event the appellant is exonerated, he may make any representation he likes and for that he is not required to take any leave of this Court. However, even if such representation is made, his dismissal, being not based on conviction, we do not know how such representation would have any effect. 7. In the result, with the observations above, we dispose of the appeal without interfering with the Judgment and order under appeal. ( Barin Ghosh, J.) ( Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court Dated 4th July, 2008 Arvind/ N.A.F.R.