IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6041 of 2007 1. Dr.Ramjee Prasad, son of late N.C.Prasad, Resident of Doudpur Kothi, P.S. Brahmpura, M.I.T. Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur, presently posted as Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur 2. Dr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, son of Sri Gopi Ram Agrawal, resident of Patrakar Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna, presently posted as Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Sri Krishna Medical College Hospital, P.S. Ahiapur, District Muzaffarpur 3. Dr. Awadhesh Kumar, son of late Bindeshwar Shah, resident of Mohalla Damuchak, P.S. Kazi Mohammadpur, District Muzaffarpur, presently posted as Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, Sri Krishna Medical College & Hospital, Muzaffarpur 4. Dr. Md. Eqbal Ahmad, son of late Md. Yusuf, resident of D/20, Mohalla Samanpura, Raja Bazaar, P.O. Bihar Veterinary College, P.S. Shashtri Nagar, District Patna, presently posted as Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur 5. Dr. (Mrs.) Kumari Bibha, D/o Dr. P.C.P.Sinha, resident of Nayatola, Angola Road, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur, presently posted as Assistant Professor, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Sri Krishna Medical College Hospital, P.S. Ahiapur, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Department of Health (Health Education and Indigenous Medicine), Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur 4. The Superintendent, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur 5. Additional Secretary, Health Medical Education and Indigenous Medicine Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 4. 29.8.2011 Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the impugned order of punishment as against all the five petitioners for their being found absent from duty has resulted into stoppage of one increment, this Court in absence of the expression used therein ‘on cumulative effect’ must hold that such stoppage of increment was with non-cumulative effect. This Court, however, does not find any other merit in this application, 2 inasmuch as a judicial notice can be taken that the doctors are invariably absent from their duty and therefore, if the Principal of the College having found the petitioners absent from duty had reported the matter to the State Government and the State Government had given a fixed time frame of 10 days to file their reply and the petitioners did not choose to file their reply within the aforementioned period of time, the consequential order of passing a minor punishment in form of stoppage of one increment does not suffer from any error. The only plea that such order was unsustainable as the increment was stopped with cumulative effect does not appeal to this Court and therefore, has also clarified that the order in question is actually by way of stoppage of increment with non-cumulative effect. That being so, this application but for the aforementioned clarification and observation fails and is accordingly dismissed. It goes without saying that as the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment of the petitioners is on non-cumulative basis, they shall be entitled for restoration of the increment from the due date in the next year. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/