IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.723 of 2004 AMARJIT BHAGAT, SON OF LATE MAHENDRA BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- JADUA( BARAHI TOLA) P.O.+ P.S. HAJIPUR, SADAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ……………… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE D.G. CUM I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE, TIRBUT RANGE, MAZAFFARPUR. 4. THE S.P. SITAMARHI. ….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: Mr. S. Parasmani, Adv. Mr. Dileep Kumar, Adv. For the State: Mr.Md. Anis Akhtar A.P to G.A.3 -------------- 9. 10.01.2011 The petitioner by this specific and apparent writ petition challenges the order of dismissal from service. From the records it appears that, petitioner was charged with being absent from duty without notice or permission for over two years. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no adequate notice of the proceedings and secondly the reason for his absence was mental ailment for which he was under treatment of a doctor at Ranchi who was also a physician in the Kanke Mental Hospital Ranchi. Having perused the counter affidavit in my view, there is no ground to interfere in the order. In support of mental ailment only one prescription and a certificate have been produced by the 2 petitioner even though it has not been brought on record from that prescription, it is clear that petitioner was not and indoor patient at Kanke, his resident of District Vaishali and used to visit Ranchi for treatment. What is not explained by petitioner is that if he or his ward or his friends could do what they did why could they not informed the police persons where he was employed. The authorities, that is the Superintendent of Police and D.I.G., both have refused to rely on the service so granted. I am not inclined to interfere in these finding of fact. Petitioner then argues that the punishment is disproportionate to the dereliction. Learned counsel has relied on several judgments of this Court where punishment is disproportionate to the dereliction is a question of fact. The judgments as relied on by the petitioner are in relation to a short period of absenteeism. In that view of the matter for a disciplined force, such absence without intimation or permission cannot be tolerated. I accordingly, do not find if a fit case to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. Devendra/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)