IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1218 of 2010 Mahesh Kumar Baitha son of late Deo Narain Ram, resident of Village Motipur Jumeda, PO & PS Motipur, Distt. Muzaffarpur .....Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The Deputy Director General of Police (Special Branch), Bihar, Patna 4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur 5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur 6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur ....Respondents/Respondents ----------- 02- 6/7/2011 Heard Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh for the appellant, and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel VII, for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of CWJC No. 15421 of 2007, and is aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the order of the respondent authorities dispensing with the services of the appellant on the ground of abandonment of the job has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the appellant’s father was in the services of the Bihar Government. He died while still in harness leading to the appellant’s appointment on compassionate ground in March 1989. While he was undergoing training at Muzaffarpur camp, he left the centre on 26.3.93 without any information to the authorities. After waiting for four years, the respondent authorities declared him as 2 absconder and dismissed him from service. The appellant’s plea of being absent for such a long time on the ground of psychological treatment has been rejected by the learned Single Judge as an attempt to cover up his absence without information or prior permission from the competent authorities. The learned Single Judge has examined the medical certificate produced by the appellant and is of the view that the same is a got up document to cover up his case and not worthy of reliance. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has acted similarly in the past also. We, therefore, agree with the order of the respondent authorities which has rightly been upheld by the learned Single Judge. 3. The appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Vikash Jain ) mrl