IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5684 of 2009 Uday Narain Shukla Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors For the Petitioner: Bahzad Akhtar, Adv. For the State: G.P. 9. ----------- 2/ 25/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Despite the passage of over two years, no counter affidavit has been filed. On 21.3.2007 a show cause notice was given to the petitioner for non-performance leading to stoppage of his salary for two months. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. The impugned order dated 3.2.2009 holds that the delay on part of the petitioner for two months to discharge the works shall be deemed to be a period of absence and which period was being adjusted as extra ordinary leave without pay with warning to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits from Rule-14 of the Bihar C.C.A. Rules, 2005 that ‘warning’ is not even a minor punishment, much less a major punishment. If there was no punishment imposed, the withholding of salary as a consequence to a non-existent order of punishment is not sustainable in law. There can be no deemed absence without a 2 specific finding of unauthorized leave. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the C.C.A. Rules that warning constitutes punishment or of unauthorized absence to justify withholding of the salary on a finding of deemed absence. It may only be noticed that the show cause notice dated 21.3.2007 did not make any allegations of unauthorized absence so as to enable the final order to arrive at any conclusion of deemed absence. The order dated 3.2.2009 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. Let the arrears of salary of the petitioner be paid within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)