RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the decision contained in memo no.2976 dated 15.09.2011 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur rejecting his representation holding that treating of 135 days of service of his absence as extraordinary leave for regularizing his absence was in order. The petitioner was posted as Inspector of Police in Muzaffarpur district. He was transferred to C.I.D., Patna from Muzaffarpur vide Police Headquarter, Patna memo no.3209/P.1 dated 9.7.98. He was relieved on 01.08.1998, however, he did not join the place of transfer and suddenly, after much delay on 14.12.1998, he had given a departure application (Annexure B) to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur stating that he was going to join C.I.D. as per his transfer. Till that he had not given any application for leave or any medical certificate etc. showing that he was being treated during 135 days of his absence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of Rule 180(a) read with Rule 236 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, the extraordinary leave could have only been granted in special circumstances when no other leave was admissible under the Code. Learned counsel contended that some of his earned leaves were admissible and available, thus, the absence should have been regularized first by utilizing all the earned leave and, then only, the balance days of absence could have been regularized from extraordinary leave.