IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12381 of 2003 Dr. Uma Kant Singh Gautam, son of Late Sirtaz Singh, village Tari Ghat, PS Suhwal, District Ghazipur, U.P. – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) The Commissioner cum Secretary, Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. (3) The Dy. Secretary, Health, Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. (4) The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, East Champaran at Motihari – Respondents. 5 1.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by orders contained in Annexure 1 series and Annexure 2 of the writ petition which relates to a departmental proceeding and the subsequent order of punishment inflicted on the petitioner. The punishment order indicates that the petitioner has to return the pay that he received between 16.12.1991 to 18.12.1992. The petitioner was a Member of the Bihar Health Services who superannuated on 31.7.1996. The petitioner was posted in the district of Palamu on 2/11/1992 from where he was transferred to Primary Health Centre, Adapur, East Champaran. It is said that there was no one present to hand over charge to him and he continued at Adapur. It is said that the petitioner later informed the Civil Surgeon and was thereafter transferred after a direction of this court passed in CWJC No. 382/1995. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 7091/1996 which was disposed of by this court on 27.4.1998 with a direction to the respondents to pay his salary from February 1992 to June 1992 and from 15.11.1992 2 to 16.5.1995. This court while hearing the matter has come to the following conclusion : “When the State Government did not issue fresh notification for posting, the petitioner came to this court in CWJC No. 382 of 1995 and on the direction of this court, respo0ndent posted the petitioner at Madhuban, Motihari and thereafter the petitioner joined on 16.6.95. After 18.11.1992 till 16.6.1995 there was no fault on the part of the petitioner as he was not allowed to work because of non-availability of the post and the entire latches was on the State and its office for which the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer and as such he is entitled to salary.” It was also observed that as far as the period of payment of salary between February 1991 to June 1992 is concerned, since there is a dispute and departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the matter would be taken up and decided in the departmental proceeding. This court also directed that the salary of the petitioner should be paid for the period 18.11.92 to 16.6.95 and that the claim of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion should be considered within a period of two months after the disposal of the departmental proceeding. The petitioner thereafter filed a contempt petition being MJC No. 2688/1998. In the said petition the court considered an un-affidavited counter affidavit prepared on behalf of the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. The final order of the departmental proceeding was annexed with the said counter affidavit along with the order for recovery of the salary. The court found that the order has been substantially complied and, thus, the contempt petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise any grievance against the 3 corrigendum imposing punishment on the petitioner before an appropriate forum. The petitioner had knowledge of the fact that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him by virtue of the fact that the State had taken such a stand in the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 7091/1996, which was disposed of on 27.4.1998. This will be apparent from the order passed in the said writ petition. As a matter of fact the petitioner also had the knowledge that final order has been passed in the departmental proceeding which would also be apparent from the order passed in the contempt petition disposed of on 5.4.1999. The ground taken for challenging the order in the departmental proceeding is that the petitioner was not given ay notice. It is said that only one notice was sent to the petitioner by the authorities concerned and, therefore, without giving the petitioner opportunity to explain his absence from 16.12.1991 to 18.12.1992, the punishment has been imposed against the petitioner. This court finds that the order, dated 23.11.1998 imposing punishment was communicated to the petitioner and was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner, yet the petitioner did not take any step to file any appeal or to move this court within a reasonable time. This writ petition has been filed on 11.11.2003, almost after more than three years from the date of knowledge, if the date of knowledge is considered to be date of the order of this court in the contempt petition. Apart from this fact, even on merit the petitioner has not been able to explain his absence and non- 4 joining of the post at Motihari, except to say that there was no body to accept his joining. This stand of the petitioner cannot prima facie be believed by this court in view of the fact that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the concerned authorities immediately. The first time the petitioner moved to bring this fact to the notice of the authorities was through a writ petition being CWJC No. 382/1995 in which he claimed his alary and that the State should given him an appropriate posting. It would not be proper for this court to comment on the fact that the petitioner was building the ground for absence from work during the period in question by making such a prayer in the writ petition. In any event this court finds no reason to interfere with the orders on the ground that the petitioner had not been served any notice in the departmental proceeding in view of the fact that the laches are on the part of the petitioner in not appearing in the departmental proceeding and taking an interest in it, although he had full knowledge of the proceeding. This writ petition is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)