IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.262 of 2011 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, NEW DELHI, GOVT. OF INDIA. 2.THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN RAILWAY, 3RD FLOOR, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, 14 STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA. 3. THE SECURITY OFFICER-II (HWH), RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN RAILWAY, HOWRAH (II). 4. ASSISTANT SECURITY OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (RPF) JAMALPUR, DISTRICT-MUNGER. 5. THE CHIEF SECURITY OFFICER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR (SONEPUR), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, 6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, GOVT. OF INDIA, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. --APPELLANTS Versus MANOHAR PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE BAL KRISHNA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SILVE KHAIRMA, P.O. GORUS PURSANDE, P.S. HALSI, DISTT.-LAKHISARAI. --RESPONDENT For the Appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha For the Respondent : Mr. Devendra Pd. Singh 3 30.03.2011 For the reasons stated in I.A. no. 1105 of 2011, 2 the delay in filing the Memo. of appeal is condoned. Counsel appearing for the Union of India argued that the sole respondent had absented himself from duty with effect from 08th October, 1980 on his transfer from Pakur reporting sick. An enquiry had been conducted by the Department by initiating a departmental proceeding and the charge sheet was issued by letter dated 28th December, 1989 (Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed in the writ application) and one R.A. Prasad, I.P.F., was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Efforts were made to serve charge sheet upon the respondent but the same could not be served upon him and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19th February, 1990, holding the charges proved against the respondent. Finally, an order of removal was passed on 08th March, 1990. The main contention, urged before the learned single Judge, was also contended before us that the respondent had filed the writ petition for the payment of post retiral benefit from 06th April, 2000, which is the date of superannuation while he was in continued service. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition only 3 on the ground that the order of removal dated 08th March, 1990 could not be produced before the learned single Judge. The learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India has further argued that it is a case for not reporting on duty right from 18th October, 1980 and nearly after a period of twenty six years he had come to this Court seeking relief for payment of post retiral benefit from 06th February, 2000 without reporting for duty. It is also further contended that the writ petition should not have been allowed for the reasons that he had never worked in service from 1980 and he had been removed from service and the order has become final. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that no order of removal has been served upon him and hence it was not produced before the learned single Judge in the court and, therefore, the learned single Judge directed the appellant-Department to pay the retiral dues for the admitted period of service rendered by him i.e. from 30th April, 1964 to 18th October, 1980 within a period of three months. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondent is not entitled 4 to any payment due to the reason that he absented himself from 18th October, 1980 and there is no record that he was on duty. The facts of the case go to show that the respondent has absented himself from 18th October, 1980 after his transfer from Pakur and he had not reported for duty. Even charge report could not be served upon him in respect of the enquiry so far conducted and order of removal was passed on 08th March, 1990. However, the respondent never at any point of time raised any illegality during interrugnum period and only after twenty six years he had come before this Court and had sought the retiral benefit in the light of the submission made that even the order could not be produced before the learned single Judge. It goes without saying that enquiry was conducted, charge sheet was issued and Mr. R.A. Prasad was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the order of penalty dated 08th March, 1990 remained unchallenged till today. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge that the respondent is entitled for retiral dues for the period 30th April, 1964 to 18th October, 1980 in the light of the order of removal. Accordingly, the Letters Patent 5 Appeal is dismissed. AAhmad (T. MEENA KUMARI, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)