IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.161 of 2001 DR. SMRITI SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 09.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.1999 by which she has been visited with a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect and the period between 4.7.1997 and 17.12.1997 has been directed to be treated as period of extraordinary leave. On 12.9.1996, the petitioner proceeded on study leave. It is her case that subsequent thereto by a notification dated 26.12.1996 she was transferred from Kunti to Kisko in Lohardaga. That on account of her being on leave, she never came to be aware of her transfer. She having completed her course on 2.7.1997 submitted her joining on 4.7.1997. Learned counsel relies upon Rule 31 of the Bihar Service Code as contained in Appendix 9 to submit that as per Rules she gave her joining at the Headquarters at Patna and was waiting for posting. The communication dated 25.9.1997 sent to her to report her joining also did not reach her and that there was no occasion for the same in view of her having joined the Headquarters on 4.7.1997. On 18.12.1997 she proceeded on maternity leave. The period thereafter is not relevant for the present controversy. The counter affidavit of the Respondents states that the petitioner on completion of her study leave instead of joining at Kisko at Lohardaga deliberately reported at the Headquarters at Patna. That she was fully aware of her transfer to Kisko at Lohardaga from Kunti during the period of her study - 2 - leave. In support thereof, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the pleadings in paragraph 6 that it was amply evident from the letters of the petitioner herself dated 25.7.1997 and 22.8.1997 that she was well aware of her transfer to Kisko at Lohardaga, but she was not inclined to join her place of posting and requested her posting at Patna. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed. While dealing paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, the rejoinder paragraph 5 does not dispute or deny the factum of the two letters alleged to have been written by her to the Department as stated in the counter affidavit. On the principles of non-traverse, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner was well aware of her transfer to Kisko at Lohardaga during the period of her study leave but for the reasons better known to her she preferred to join at the Headquarters. The invocation of Rule 31 of the Bihar Service Code for the submission that she reported at the Headquarters as per Rule does not impress the Court. In the facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has made out no case for interference. Additionally, it is also apparent that the petitioner has withheld information from the Court and presented the facts in twisted manner. For both reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)