IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5448 of 2006 BHOGENDRA JHA SON OF SRI YOGENDRA JHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE EKPARHA, P.O. TARIYAMA, P.S. SIMRI, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ………PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JEHANABAD. 3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MAGADH RANGE GAYA. ……..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 12.01.2011 The petitioner was a constable and police in the State by this writ application he has to challenge the order dated 14.5.2002 and order dated 27.8.2004 by which he has been dismissed and the appeal against the dismissal order was also dismissed. The solitary ground for dismissal of the petitioner is unauthorized absence for about 100 and 69 days. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Choudhary submits that the departmental proceedings were carried out in violation of principles of natural justice but as to which unauthorized absence. The petitioner is not in a position to contest the same his defence is that he had lost his mental balance. On the other hand, learned AAG-1 for the State submits that over all conduct of the petitioner, in this matter does not call for any interference. He submits that petitioner was deputed in the Panchayat Election was in-charge of the armory, he vanished from there without intimation or permission on or about 29.4.2001 after about 52 days he turned up and he was intimated that a departmental proceeding was being initiated against him and he was suspended. This is not denying by the petitioner he again - 2 - vanished and surfaced again long after the dismissal was passed. Learned Additional Advocate points out that even in the appellate proceedings as filed by the petitioner. The only defence was that he was mentally unstable during that period and was under treatment of a doctor associated with the Ranchi Mental Asylum Kanke. A reference to that certificate as appended by the petitioner himself shows that he was under treatment as between 10.3.2000 to 22.10.2000, which is several months prior to the occurrence in question. In the facts aforesaid I am not inclined to interfere in the matter the principles of natural justice are not like unruly harsh. There have to be facts necessary for its application. Here virtually petitioner has no defence to over again his unauthorized absence, more so, when he was amended his person about his suspension he again vanished for over 100 days. For which there is no explanation, suspension does not mean secession of service. In such a situation there being no plausible defence to his absence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ application on the technical plea of violation of principles of natural justice or disproportionately of sentence Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. Devendra/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)