IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11380 of 2004 Tarni Prasad Jha, Son of Late Nakchched Jha, R/o-Vill.-Tardiha, P.S.- Madhepur, District-Madhubani. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Family Welfare and Medical Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 5. Under Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. –Respondents. ----------- 15 19.04.2011 The petitioner was in the Bihar Health Service. Ostensibly he has filed the present writ application with a prayer to relax his services in respect of two periods. The first period is 03.11.1992 to 11.04.1994 where by Government order dated 29.03.2004 (Annexure-26) it has been held that the aforesaid period would be treated as leave without pay. The second period is 18.10.2000 to 07.08.2001, which period by Annexure-23 dated 18.04.2002 has been treated as leave without pay. Having perused the two orders, in my view, there is no cause to interfere. So far as the first period is concerned, Annexure-26 clearly states that petitioner was to join his post at Primary Health Centre, Nanpur in the district of Sitamarhi after leave. On 03.11.1992 he reported straight to the secretariat without reporting to his station and remained at Patna on the plea of waiting for posting which was not permissible. He was first to join or give his joining at Nanpur and if there was any problem with the report he had to report to secretariat. He did nothing. In fact, the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that when he went to join on 03.11.1992 at Nanpur Block he was not permitted to join by the Civil Surgeon as the post was not available. - 2 - There was nothing on record to support this assertion. By order dated 08.08.2006 this Court directed the petitioner to bring on record the material to substantiate his pleadings. None has been brought on record. In fact, it is clear from Annexure-26 itself that on 12.04.1994 he did go back and join at Nanpur in the Primary Health Centre where there was a vacant position. It belies his statement that the post was not available. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere with order dated 29.03.2004, as contained in Annexure-26, in relation to the first period. Coming to the second period, that is, from 18.10.2000 to 07.08.2001, as contained in Annexure-23, being order dated 18.04.2002. A bare perusal of the said order would show that petitioner was transferred and directed to join his due place and posting. He did not join nor did he give up charge of his earlier post. Accordingly, petitioner was suspended on 06.08.2001 and departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The order dated 18.04.2002 (Annexure-23) is the culmination of the departmental proceeding and one of the punishments that have been awarded for the period 18.10.2000 to 07.08.2001 when he refused to join the new place of posting that period would be treated as leave without pay. The order passed in the departmental proceeding have not been challenged as such. The prayer is only to regularize the said period. In my view, without the challenge to the order as passed in the departmental proceeding such a prayer cannot be - 3 - granted. Even otherwise, in view of the facts noted in the order itself, it cannot be said that the order treating the said period as period of leave without pay is bad in any manner. Therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure-23, being order dated 18.04.2002 in that respect is not to be interfered with. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)