IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7283 of 2003 Sri Nagendra Prasad Verma, Son of late Mahavir Lal, Resident of Mohalla Doiea, P.S. Noorsarai, Distt. Nalanda, at present posted – as Project Officer, Mulbary Extension cum-Training Centre Motihari, Distt. East Champaran. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner and Secretary, Deptt. of Industries, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna-15. 2. Director, Handloom and Sery culture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. (New Secretariate) 3. Assistant Director, Handloom and Sery Culture, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. ---------- Respondents ----------- 3 7.11.2009 No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(i) That for issuance of writ/writs in the nature of mandamous for quashing the order dated 21.6.02 containing in Annexure-4 letter no. 2098/02 issued by the Secretary Sri K.B.N. Singh, Industries Deptt. Bihar, Patna. (ii) For commanding the respondents to immediately hold an inquiry as to why the petitioner has been punished without considering the fact of the case.” With reference to the aforementioned prayer, the respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was subjected to a departmental 2 proceeding for the misconduct vide memo of charge dated 1.8.2001 and was also afforded an opportunity to participate in the enquiry whereafter the enquiry officer out of two charges had found one of them to be proved against the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide an order dated 21st June, 2002 and was also intimated that he will not be entitled for payment of salary for the period of suspension beyond subsistence allowance. From reading of the writ application, it would appear that the petitioner has concentrated in respect of the charge no.1 for which he had already stood exonerated and for which he was not even held guilty by the enquiry officer. In fact, it is the charge no.2 for which the petitioner was held guilty and that had got nothing to do with the criminal case. In that view of the matter, no other ground having been taken to assail the impugned order in this writ application nor any rejoinder affidavit having been filed to 3 the counter affidavit, this Court has to presume that the absence of the counsel for the petitioner would only mean that the petitioner has also lost interest in this case specially when he has already retired from service. Even otherwise, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and consequently, this application, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)