IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5099 of 1999 Dr.Krishna Prasad Modi, son of late Sri Narain Modi, resident of Line Bazar, District Purnea … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Deputy Secretary cum Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Deputy Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 6. The Deputy Director cum Conducting Officer, (Infectious Deceases), Health Services, Bihar, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 5. 5.8.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. On the last occasion also when the case was listed on 26.7.2011 no one had appeared for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State is present. From the perusal of the records of this case wherein the following relief has been prayed: “That this is an application praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the Government notification no. 672(18) dated 3.5.1999 (Annexure 10) by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment in departmental proceeding contrary to the findings of enquiring/ conducting officer. And further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner in senior Selection Grade (12½%) from 1.4.1990 which was kept pending due to suspension of the petitioner. And further for a direction to the respondent authorities to provide arrears of salaries during the suspension period i.e. from 22.12.1995 to 3.5.1999, commanding the respondents to act in according to law restraining 2 them from enforcing any illegal order/orders infringing the fundamental right of the petitioner.” this Court is of the considered opinion that in a departmental proceeding the order of punishment passed can be interfered only if there is some procedural infirmity in conducting the departmental proceeding and/or denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself in such departmental proceeding. In the present case relating to the charge of unauthorized absence as also flouting of transfer order, when a departmental proceeding was conducted, the petitioner did not complain of any procedural infirmity and accordingly, on the basis of materials on record the impugned order of punishment was passed by recording warning in his service record as also treating the period of his unauthorized absence on 11.7.1995 to 22.12.1995 as the period of unauthorized absence with a saving grace that the same shall not be treated to be break in service but would be treated as unpaid leave. In the considered opinion of this Court such lenient punishment for a comparatively serious charge of unauthorized absence would not be even otherwise vulnerable on the ground of its being either disproportionate or excessive. Once this aspect becomes clear that the order of punishment dated 3.5.1999 does not suffer from any error, the rest of the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to grant of his promotion in Senior Selection Grade must also be held to be 3 wholly misconceived, inasmuch as his such promotion in Senior selection grade had become due on or after 1.4.1990 during which the petitioner was reeling under the departmental proceeding wherein he was earlier suspended and ultimately was also punished. Therefore, the denial of promotion in Selection Grade to such a person whose service record did not remain clean can also not be faulted with either on fact or in law. The petitioner’s further claim for payment of arrears of salary between 22.12.1995 to 3.5.1999 being also covered by the order of punishment wherein he was held to be disentitled for any amount beyond payment of subsistence allowance, this Court must hold that the petitioner would not be entitled for payment of salary for the aforesaid period. The last prayer of the petitioner of his being posted at Purnea has definitely become infructuous, inasmuch as he has already retired from the Government service. That being so, none of the relief will be admissible to the petitioner and this writ application, accordingly, must fail. In the result, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/