IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4030 of 2005 NAKUL YADAV S/O KAMAL KISHOR YADAV R/O VILL & PO-LAL DARWAJA PS-KOTWALI,MUNGER-PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G.-CUM-I.G. OF POLICE, BIHAR PATNA 3. THE ADDL. D.I.G.OF POLICE BMP,BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE D.I.G.OF POLICE BMP NORTHERN ZONE,MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-6, MUZAFFARTPUR--------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5 24.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The predicament of the petitioner is of his own creation. He has came to be dismissed from service after an enquiry since he deserted the force and remained absent for 415 days. Petitioner was appointed as a constable under the Bihar Military Police on 29.4.2000. Within a few months of such appointment he abandoned the force on 5.8.2000 and absented without any permission or information of any authority. Thereafter an enquiry has been held in which the petitioner tried to offer his explanation that first it was his wife who was unwell which necessitated his desertion and secondly he was mentally unwell and therefore he could not inform the authority and remained absent for 415 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he did produce the necessary medical certificate including the prescription of Dr. B.B. Singh under whose treatment the petitioner was but the authority did not consider the same. This is too much of a co-incidence that of all the - 2 - cases which have come before this Court in the matter of dismissal due to desertion of constables they have been under the treatment of the same doctor who has given medical certificates covering the period of absence. There is no evidence whatsoever that besides the certificates obtained by such deserters they underwent hospitalization of any kind or treatment under the proper medical supervision extended over a period of time. This Court can take a judicial notice of the fact that it is only Dr. B.B. Singh who has given certificates of treatment to all the deserters and the same doctor cannot end up treating all the deserters who had been dealt with departmentally and punishment orders have come to be passed. Even otherwise there was an enquiry held and explanation offered by the petitioner does not help him in the matter because whatever be the circumstance there ought to have some information given to the concerned commandant and appropriate steps for leave should have been taken. Looking at the period when the petitioner was appointed and the period he deserted the force obviously it seems a case where the petitioner could not take the rigors of training and he had absented from the force out of his own voluntary act. In all probability the petitioner was under probation, as a period of two years has been fixed for probation before confirmation of a constable under the Police Manual. In the totality of the circumstance dismissal order - 3 - was least which should be passed in this case. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed. Before parting however learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not been paid subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. This fact however stands contradicted by the stand taken by the State. But it is a matter of verification. If the petitioner has not been paid his subsistence allowance for the period of suspension he may demand the same by making an application before the appropriate authority with supporting document and the concerned authority will be obliged to get the matter verified as per necessary rule of subsistence allowance and communicate their decision to the petitioner at the earliest. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)