IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4974 of 2005 Dr.Abu Saleh Ahmad, son of late Md. Yunus, resident of Mohalla Chandwara Zamiran Gachi Jail Road, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Health Commissioner, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Additional Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, Govt. of Bihar, Patna … Respondents ---------------------------------- 7. 14.12.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present and he has filed a counter affidavit pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 5.7.2011 and 3.8.2011. In this writ application the prayer of the petitioner reads as follows: “(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents to treat the petitioner on duty during the period between 23.2.1988 to till date. (b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order or directions directing and commanding the respondents to regularize, if any, absence from duty as extra ordinary leave. (c) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order and directions directing and commanding the respondents concerned to pass an appropriate order by sanctioning/ extending leave so that the petitioner is to be deemed not to have remained absent from duty without leave duly granted. 2 (d) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing and commanding the respondents to pay arrear of salary as well as current salary to the petitioner.” From the averments made in the writ application, it is clear that the petitioner had proceeded on leave for working in Saudi Arabia for a period of two years but he did not rejoin the post within the period of two years whereafter he was subjected to a departmental proceeding and the Enquiry Officer had found the charge against the petitioner to have been proved, whereafter he was given a certain show cause notice on 30.12.1987 and again on 24.2.1999. The petitioner is said to have responded to the second show cause notice on 17.3.1999 and when he had demanded the documents including the enquiry report and the show cause notice the same was also supplied by the Department on 29.6.1999. The petitioner thereafter had submitted his detailed reply on 27.11.1999 enclosing as many as 16 documents apart from the detailed averments made in 14 pages show cause reply. The department thereafter had tentatively taken a decision and had approached the Bihar Public Service Commission seeking concurrence for dismissal of the petitioner from service. The B.P.S.C. somehow had taken more than three years in giving its recommendation and when a reminder was sent to the B.P.S.C. by the State Government on 27.3.2003 the B.P.S.C. very casually in the year 2011 had informed the Government that such recommendation had already been made on 21.7.2003. It was in 3 this background that a final order had been passed on 10.8.2011 wherein the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground of his being unauthorizedly absent from duty. This Court does not find any error in the decision making process and in fact when the petitioner was given not only opportunity to appear in the departmental proceeding but was also supplied with all the papers which he wanted in order to enable him to file a show cause reply and that he could ultimately also file exhaustive show cause reply which was again taken into consideration in the reasoned order passed by the authority on 10.8.2011, there would be no need now to allow the petitioner to be taken back in service, specially when he himself had voluntarily left his service way back in the year 1982 initially by proceeding on leave for working in a foreign Country i.e. Saudi Arabia and thereafter remaining absolutely indifferent to his job. The petitioner in fact has already attained the age of superannuation and in the light of the impugned order would not be entitled for any payment of salary and/or retirement benefit, especially when his services from 1973 to 1982 before he had proceeded on leave would also not qualify for any payment of pension. Considering all these aspects this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that the amount of cost as directed in the order of this Court dated 3.8.2011 has not been deposited by the respondents, this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of 4 the Health, Medical, Education and Family Welfare to deposit it within a period of one month from today, failing which the said amount shall be recovered in accordance with law. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/