IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1146 of 2010 Shatrughan Prasad Raman, S/O Late Ram Kripal Das, R/O Vill.- Anpatti Sri Rampur, P.S.- Ashok Paper Mill, Distt.- Darbhanga At Present Posted at Anchal Office, Kusheswar Asthan East Darbhanga --- Appellant----Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 3. Collector, Darbhanga 4. Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Darbhanga. 5. Block Development Officer, Keoti, Darbhanga. 6. Circle Officer, Kusheswar Asthan, East Anchal, Darbhanga ------ Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 2. 29.6.2011 Heard Mr. Kaushlesh Choudhary for the appellant, and Mr. Vijoy Kumar Pandey, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.20. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 578 of 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order of punishment against the writ petitioner has been upheld. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant 2 herein was, at the relevant point of time, posted as head clerk in the office of the Block Development Officer, Keoti Block. There was surprise inspection of the block and the petitioner (appellant herein) was found absent from the headquarter, leading to show- cause dated 19.5.2009, issued under the signature of the learned District Magistrate of Darbhanga. It is evident on a perusal of the same that it was intended to consider imposition of minor punishment on the petitioner. On a consideration of the cause shown by the appellant, punishment of deprivation of two increments with non-cumulative effect was inflicted on the petitioner. He challenged the same by preferring appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which was rejected, leading to the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has held that, as per the Service Condition Rules, an employee has to reside at his work place. He can live elsewhere only with prior permission of the appropriate authority. Not having been obtained, the learned Single Judge has held that punishment is well merited, particularly because it is a minor punishment, and principles of 3 natural justice have been observed. We agree with the order of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)