IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15643 of 2001 SMT. KIRAN KUMARI, W/O SHRI RAJEDNRA PRASAD VERMA, R/O MOHALLA-MIR GULABI BAGH, P.S.- KHAJEKALA, DISTRICT-PATNA PRESENTLY POSTED AS PARICHARIKA GRADE-A GURU GOVIND SINGH, PATNA CITY HOSPITAL, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR-IN-CHIEF, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GURU GOVIND SINGH HOSPITAL, PATNA CITY, PATNA. ……RESPONDENTS. ---------- For the petitioner : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha & Mrs. Poonam Kumari, Advocates For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, A.C. to GP-XI. ----------- 5 5.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18.6.1999 passed by the Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, rejecting her representation for payment of salary of the period 2.12.1989 to 30.6.1991, as contained in Annexure-1. It appears that petitioner had earlier moved this Court for a direction to the 2 respondents to pay her salary of the period through C.W.J.C. No. 12302 of 1993 which was permitted to be withdrawn on the submission of her learned counsel that she intended to avail alternative remedy. The said order of this Court dated 31.3.1995 is annexed as Annexure-5. Petitioner appears to have filed representation before the Director-in-Chief thereafter, which was considered and rejected by the impugned order. The impugned order shows that, from the records, the Director-in-Chief found that, for the period for which she had claimed salary, she had been avoiding to join her transferred post and all through she was making efforts to get a choice posting which she ultimately got and then only she joined her services. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to some notings of the file, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-7. From the said notings itself, it appears that time to time petitioner had approached the political authorities and repeated recommendations were made by them, on account of which, repeated orders were passed for her posting, but she did not join. From the notings itself, it appears 3 that after her relieving by the Deputy Superintendent of Patna City Hospital with effect from 2.12.1989 for joining in Directorate, her order of posting was issued on 19.1.1990 placing her under the control of Civil Surgeon, Chaibasa. However, she did not join there and kept on making political pairvi and it was only after she was posted back in Patna City Hospital, she joined the post. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that no documents have been placed by the petitioner on record to show that she had submitted her joining in the office of Civil Surgeon, Chaibasa or subsequent places which was ever refused. Therefore, apparently she was absent throughout the period and kept making all attempts to get a choice posting and joined only when she got it. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no action was taken against the petitioner for withholding of her salary by the respondents, respondents were not entitled to refuse her salary of the period. In support of this submission he has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 2002 (2) BLJ 271. 4 It is true that, before withholding of the salary of any period on the ground of unauthorized absence or for any reason, the rules of audi alterm partem have to be complied with. The order of withholding of salary cannot be a unilateral decision on subjective satisfaction of an authority. Therefore, in normal course, action has to be taken in the matter with due opportunity to the incumbent to satisfy his claim for release of the salary, and only on the failure of the incumbent to satisfy the authority with regard to his bona fide, that the salary of the period of absence can be withheld. However, in this case petitioner had already moved this Court earlier and her writ application was withdrawn to enable her to avail alternative remedy available to her. Thereafter, she filed her representation before the Director-in-Chief and the Director-in-Chief considered the same, in reference to the records, and has found that she was unauthorizedly absent during the period from her service. In the circumstances, in the facts of this case, the said rule of audi alterm partem 5 stands complied with. So far as merit of the order is concerned, there is no material on records to show that petitioner had made any bona fide attempt to join her place of postings during the period as per the repeated orders issued by the authorities. It is also apparent from the notings relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner that only after orders of her choice posting was issued, she joined her service. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the order of the Director- in-Chief, Health Services as contained in Annexure-1 and, therefore, does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is dismissed. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)