CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6717 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ____ Garbhu Sah, son of late Nathuni Shah, resident of village Morhadi, P.O. + P.S. - Babu Barhi, District – Madhubani. ____________ Petitioner 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. D. G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police, Champran Range, Bettiah. 4. The S. P. East Champaran, Motihari. _____________ Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. Ram Hriday Pd. For the respondents: AAG-1. _____ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J. Annexure-3 is the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Motihari. The order of dismissal passed against the petitioner has been challenged in the present writ application. The petitioner wants quashing of the same for the reasons urged at the bar. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner came to be dismissed from service for the reason that for a long period of time he absconded from duty and did not report back after expiry of the period of leave initially granted. The findings are there. The explanations offered by the petitioner by way of a prescription of a doctor that he was suffering form mental illness etc. are not issues to be gone into. 2 However, one aspect which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the punishment merits consideration. 3. The disciplinary authority has dismissed the petitioner from service from the date he was absconding i.e. 10.6.1986. This order has been passed on 22.5.1989. Submission of the counsel is that the order of punishment from a retrospective date is not permissible under law. The maximum which the disciplinary authority could do was to pass the order of dismissal from the date of the order and not from a retrospective date. 4. In support of such a proposition leaned counsel for the petitioner brings to my notice a decision in similar circumstances rendered in the case of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha Vs. Patna University and others, reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 280. The Court after taking note of several decisions on this issue has categorically held in para 6 of the said decision that termination from a retrospective date is not permissible. 5. Based on the principles decided in the case of Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the petitioner has made out a case for interference with regard to punishment order so far as dismissal from 10.6.1986 is concerned. The order of dismissal therefore stands quashed to the extent that the same shall be applicable from the date of the order and not from the date petitioner went absconding i.e. 10.6.1986. Even the order in appeal affirming the said order accordingly stands quashed. 3 6. The writ application is allowed with a direction upon the respondents that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits for the period 10.6.1986 till 21.5.1989, depending upon his service records and entitlement in this regard. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court; The 10th August, 2010. R K Pathak (NAFR)