IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1668 of 2007 Brajendra Singh, SON OF KUSHESHWAR SINGH @ KUSHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KANAUSI, P.S. GARHPURA, P.O.- DUNHI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :---PETITIONER. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SHAHABAD, RANGE, DEHRI ON SON, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEHRI-ON-SON, ROHTAS. 5. THE SUPERINTE NDENT OF POLICE, BHOJPUR, DIST- ARA. 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DEHRI-ON-SON, (HEAD QUARTER), DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 7. THE SARGENT MAJOR, DEHRI-ON-SON, POLICE LINE, DISTRICT- ROHTAS. 8. THE SARGENT MAJOR, NEW POLICE LINE, BHOJPUR, DISTRICT- ARA. 9. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, AAYAIR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT ARA :---RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- For the petitioner : M/S Pramod Mishra & Raj Kishor Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. R.S.Nath, A.A.G-3, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. ======== 3. 03.08.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State; also perused the counter affidavit. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Police Constable in the Police Line, Dehri within the district of Rohtas. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and validity of the dismissal order bearing Memo No. 2592 dated 25.07.2005, Annexure-3 which was passed after conclusion of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner holding him guilty for absconding from the place of duty for 996 days from 02.03.2000 until 20.11.2002. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order bearing Memo No. 2 476 dated 26.3.2006 communicated to the petitioner under Memo No. 1540 dated 24.4.2006, Annexure-6, whereunder the appeal filed against the dismissal order has been rejected. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 5767 dated 5th December, 2007 communicated to him under Memo No. 482 dated 25.1.2008, Annexure-9, whereunder the memorial of the petitioner filed against the dismissal, appellate order has been rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioner challenged the three orders on the ground that the dismissal order was passed against the petitioner without giving him adequate opportunity to defend himself of the charge of unauthorized absence from the place of duty for 996 days. It is also submitted that had the petitioner been given adequate opportunity to defend himself he would have established before the Enquiry Officer that having learnt about the illness of his daughter he left his place of duty on 03.02.2000 for attending on his ailing daughter and while attending on the ailing daughter himself became ill on 15.03.2000 which continued until 16.11.2002 preventing him from reporting back for duty. Aforesaid plea petitioner could not take before the Enquiry Officer 3 as he was not given adequate opportunity to take such plea but such plea has been taken by him before the appellate, the authority considering his memorial appeal i.e. the Director General of Police who while considering the memorial found that the plea of the petitioner that he remained ill for the period between 15.3.2000-16.11.2002 is not to be accepted as the nature of illness which has been indicated in the memorial appeal is different from the illness for which petitioner has produced medical certificate and prescription(s). Plea of illness of the petitioner having been found to be incorrect by the superior police officer, I am not inclined to interfere with the dismissal, appellate, order passed on the memorial appeal of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, reported in (2005) 11SCC 513 paragraph 5 and submitted that this Court should interfere with the impugned orders passed by the superior police authorities dismissing the petitioner as the punishment imposed is harsh and severe which should be set aside directing the authorities to impose on the petitioner any punishment other than dismissal, removal or 4 compulsory retirement so that petitioner may carry on his living. 4. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission in view of the fact that under the reported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts of that case the Tribunal itself had set aside the punishment order passed against Sanjay Kumar Sharma which was not interfered by the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also did not choose to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and the High Court. In the case in hand petitioner has been found to be under unauthorized absence from his place of duty for over 996 days during which period petitioner never made any attempt to inform the authorities about the circumstances in which he had to leave his place of duty without grant of leave and further the circumstance under which he was not coming back to join the duty. 5. For the reasons aforementioned I do not find any merit in the writ petition which is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)