IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12068 of 2003 RAM EKBAL SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Ambernath Banarji, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A. Amanullah, SC-17 --------------- 5. 29.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was deputed to the Bihar State Electricity Board from the Department of Water Resources. He was ordered to go back to his parent department. He represented. Ultimately, he was required to join the parent department at Ranchi. He joined at the headquarters. The original order requiring him to join at Ranchi was modified requiring him to join at Muzaffarpur. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents seeking to blame on the petitioner does not deny that he had joined at the headquarters. From the controversy noticed in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner is also liable to share a part of the blame by not joining at Ranchi and instead joining at headquarters. Allegations have also been made that he did so with an attempt to obtain a desired posting etc. Be that as it may, the petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to the period 16.12.1991 to 22.12.1991 directed to be treated as a transit leave. The period between 23.12.1991 to 30.8.1992, has 2 been directed to be treated as one of unauthorized absence for which no financial benefit was payable, but not to be treated as a break in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the nature of the controversy noticed at best, it was a bona fide error on the part of the petitioner but it cannot be said that he remained absent from duty so as to deny him salary for the aforesaid period. Counsel for the State contended that it has only been directed that the latter period shall not be taken into consideration for any other financial service benefits. In the nature of the controversy discussed above, this Court is satisfied that justice shall be met if the order of punishment is clarified to mean that the petitioner was not entitled to salary only for the period 23.12.1991 to 30.8.1992 and for which he must bear a part of the blame also. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)