Patna High Court CWJC No.10146 of 2010 (3) dt.08-11-2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10146 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Umesh Chaudhary S/O Late Nevi Chaudhary R/O Vill.- Hanumant Nagar, Ward No. 15, Araria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector, Araria 2. The Collector, Araria 3. Block Development Officer, Raniganj Block, Araria 4. Circle Officer, Jokihat Circle, Araria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp8) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 08-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The cost as ordered by this Court are handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of a demand draft. The original writ petition questioned the order of punishment dated 3.3.2010 dismissing the petitioner from government service. The writ petition represented that the memo of charge alleged unauthorized absence from August,2007 to October, 2007 while the order of punishment refers to absence from 23.3.2008 to 31.8.2008, 1.4.2008 to 30.4.2008 and 25.6.2008. The only submission being made before this Court was that the punishment was Patna High Court CWJC No.10146 of 2010 (3) dt.08-11-2011 2 disproportionate to the offence as the petitioner had not denied the charge. When the writ petition was taken up for consideration, no counter affidavit had been filed. The Court on reading of the charges and the order of punishment queried if they related to two separate departmental proceedings. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which confirms the query of the Court that they were two separate departmental proceedings. The period August, 2007 to October, 2007 subjected to departmental proceedings never attained finality. The punishment dated 3.3.2010 is the result of a separate departmental proceeding. The petitioner has an adequate alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order of punishment dated 3.3.2010. By reason of what has transpired in the counter affidavit that the order dated 3.3.2010 was the result of a separate departmental proceeding, quite naturally, the petitioner is now required to calculate his thoughts and materials to decide whether he would like to assail the order dated 3.3.2010 on grounds as he may be advised. The writ application is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner files such memo of appeal within 45 days from today, let the same be considered by the appellate authority on its own merits and disposed of in accordance with the statutory provisions. Nothing in the present order shall be deemed, Patna High Court CWJC No.10146 of 2010 (3) dt.08-11-2011 3 construed or opined as any reluctance of the Court to consider the order of punishment dated 3.3.2010 on merits, when in fact there has been no occasion for the Court to do so. The writ application stands disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)