IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16752 of 2009 1. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI DEO KUMAR LAL, R/O MOH- NEW COLONY, DHARHARA, PO- ARRAH, P.S- ARRAH TOWN, DISTT- BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER, THEN RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, NEW RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY, THEN RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, NOW RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIGILANCE PRAMANDAL-1, THEN RURAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, NOW RURAL DEPARTMENT, PATNA 4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, THEN RURAL ENGINEERING ORGANISATION, NOW RURAL WORK DEPARTMENT, WORK CIRCLE, PATNA 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THEN RURAL ENGINEERING ORGAINSATION, NOW RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, MASAURHI, DISTT- PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondents:- Mr. Sanyaj Kumaqr Sinha S.C.-13 ------------------ 2. 25.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who was appointed as a Tracer in the Rural Engineering Organization Works Circle came to this Court earlier in C.W.J.C. No. 8996 of 2002. It has been adequately noticed therein that he was terminated on 21.1.1992 when it was set aside in C.W.J.C. No. 6753 of 1990. He had to pursue the matter in C.W.J.C. No. 6261 of 1994 for forwarding his LPC to his transferred place of posting at Masaurhi. He had received his salary up to September, 1999, and thereafter was not being allowed to sign the attendance register and consequently being deprived of salary also. The petitioner had come to this Court with promptitude in the year, 2002 itself when he was not allowed to sign the attendance register, work and receive salary. The 2 respondents filed a counter affidavit that his LPC had been forwarded to the transferred place at Masaurhi on 8.11.1995. The respondents sought to make an issue that he did not join after his termination was quashed and therefore was no more in service after 10.10.1990. The Court noticed the contradictory stand of the respondents urging firstly that he absent from duty with effect from October, 1999 and then saying that he was no more in service since 10.10.1990 even while acknowledging that in pursuance of the order of this Court his LPC had been sent to transferred place at Masaurhi on 10.3.1995. This Court therefore directed respondent no. 1 to examine matters either himself or by a responsible officer at the Secretariat level. In pursuance thereof an enquiry was done and the report submitted by the Deputy Secretary on 1.7.2009. It states that the petitioner joined at Masaurhi pursuant to his transfer after the setting aside of his termination on 1.6.1992. Work was also taken from him from January, 1999 to September, 1999. Salary was withheld from 7.9.1990 to December, 1998 in absence of the LPC certificate which came to be received at Masaurhi on 10.3.1995. It concludes that he appears to be a victim of the controlling officer who by his verbal order did not allow him to work and did not release his salary due to his own ego problem with the petitioner. The petitioner was legally a valid Government servant and neither had his service been terminated or placed under suspension. 3 In pursuance thereof has followed the impugned order dated 7.10.2009 holding that notices had been published in the newspaper in the year, 2005 calling for his explanation for his unauthorized absence. He had never been seen in the Masaurhi office and therefore it was not possible to accept his pleas. Counsel for the State vehemently urged that even though one Executive Engineer or the controlling officer may have been egoist towards the petitioner. Subsequent Executive Engineer’s gave him full opportunity to join work which the petitioner did not avail of. Therefore, on the premises of no work no pay, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and shall be taken to have abandoned service. In the entire controversy, while the respondents seek to shift the burden to the petitioner who appears to have been hounded, they refuse to answer for their own conduct. The enquiry report dated 1.7.2009 is explicit. If the petitioner was at fault, there was someone in the department abusing his powers to create a piquant situation for the petitioner hounding him by naked display of abuse of power when did not have the courage to take on the might of the State. The enquiry finding that he was being hounded because of the egoist attitude of the controlling Executive Engineer has not been doubted much less negated in the impugned order dated 7.10.2009. It cannot be lost sight that the petitioner was a Tracer holding a Class-III post. Litigation would be a luxury for him to pursue the same from his meager 4 resources of salary. Merely because he may have not been very vigilant, this Court cannot overlook the conduct of the respondents. The petitioner however, shall have to share a part of the blame also. To direct the petitioner to satisfy the authorities of his penury in the interregnum shall be doing greater injustice to him in the peculiar facts of the case. The impugned order dated 7.10.2009 is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to 50 per cent of the arrears of wages and shall receive his current salary no sooner that he joins forthwith. There shall be continuity in his service for pensionary and other purposes but his seniority shall have to be adequately considered by the respondents on an appropriate representation to be made by him. It is the duty of the respondents to administratively proceed against the concerned controlling officer indicted in the enquiry report dated 1.7.2009, including recovery of the 50% wages paid to the petitioner from the wages of the delinquent after show cause notice. The writ application stands allowed to be complied by the respondents within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)