IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1486 of 2001 Md. Taiyab, son of late S.M. Ayub, resident of Mohalla- River Side Road, Neer Dargah Gali Panchayati Akhara, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Gaya, Ex-Driver of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Gaya Division. ...... Petitioner. Versus 1.The Administrator, Bihar, State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. 2. The Divisional Manager, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Gaya Division, Gaya. ..... Respondents. ----------- 06- 10.12.2008 Heard Mr. Sitesh Chandra Mitra for the petitioner, and Mr. P.K. Verma for the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and its functionaries. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of the subsistence allowance for the period 12.11.1993 to 7.9.1997. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. 2. A brief narration of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was in the services of the respondent-Corporation and was, at the relevant point of time, posted as a Driver in the Gaya depot. Charge-sheet dated 27.9.1993 (Annexure-1) was served on him, wherein it was, inter alia, alleged that he has been realising the fare of an adult passenger, 2 whereas accounting for it as a minor passenger. He was placed under suspension on 12.11.1993. He was subjected to a criminal trial and has ultimately been acquitted by judgment dated 14.12.1999 (Annexure-5). His headquarter was changed to Jehanabad depot where he never reported. He also never appeared before the learned enquiry officer and had instead submitted representation(s) submitting therein that further proceedings in the disciplinary proceedings be stayed till the disposal of the criminal trial. The learned enquiry officer rejected the petitioner’s prayer and he was informed by communication dated 11.11.1994 (Annexure-D), notwithstanding which the petitioner never appeared before the learned enquiry officer leading to an ex-parte enquiry report whereby he was held guilty. 3. On a perusal of the materials on record the learned disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal dated 8.9.1997 (Annexure-4). The petitioner’s departmental appeal was dismissed by order dated 16.12.2000 (Annexure-7). In the meanwhile, as stated hereinabove, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial court. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims payment of subsistence allowance. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) 1999 S.C.C. (L & S) 810= (1999)3 S.C.C. 679 (Capt. M. Paul anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another). (ii) A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 2959 (Anwarun Nisha Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar and others). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in view of the petitioner’s conduct, he is not entitled to the direction sought for in the writ jurisdiction. He also submits that the petitioner had never reported at Jehanabad depot, never appeared before the learned enquiry officer, and never made any attempt to satisfy the authorities that he was gainfully employed during the period of suspension. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that, after the petitioner was placed under suspension, his head-quarter was changed to Jehanabad. It further appears from the inter- departmental communication dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure-C) that the petitioner did not report 4 at Jehanabad. It is the admitted position that the petitioner never appeared before the learned enquiry officer. He had sent a communication that further proceeding in the departmental proceeding may be stayed until conclusion of the trial. The plea was rejected by the learned enquiry officer and the petitioner was informed by communication dated 11.11.1994 (Annexure-D), and was called upon to appear before the learned enquiry officer in support of his defence. Repeated notices had to be sent to the petitioner for his appearance in the enquiry proceedings. The respondents had published a public notice which had appeared in the daily newspaper on 20.8.1997 (Annexure-F), that the petitioner was given the last opportunity to present his case before the learned enquiry officer. It appears from a perusal of the order of the learned disciplinary authority that the petitioner was never present at the head-quarter at Jehanabad, though he had appeared on a few dates before the learned enquiry officer. However, he had taken no step to present his defence. Law is well settled that discretionary writ jurisdiction is never exercised in favour of 5 persons who have no respect for rule of law and the established procedure. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on the judgment dated 16.2.2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3552 of 1999 (Sudarshan Sharma Vs. State of Bihar and others), wherein identical plea in similar background was rejected on the allegations that “...it is well known unless and until a delinquent employee under suspension is found present at the head-quarter with supporting evidence, he would not be entitled for the subsistence allowance...”. I would, therefore, not like to exercise my discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of a person like the petitioner who has never shown respect for the law and the established procedure. It is further stated in the impugned order that he has been habitual in acts of omission and commission of like nature. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 6