DAYA NAND MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

(2.) On 6.3.2003 the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk. The petitioner was posted in the Block Office at Kishanganj. The petitioner from October 2003 was not attending to his duty. On account of his continued absence, a show cause notice was issued to him by the Block Development Officer, Kishanganj on 20.5.2004. Similar show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Deputy Collector Incharge of the Establishment on 16.10.2004 on the petitioner's permanent address, the same was also not responded. The authorities thereafter resorted to paper publication in Hindustan on 10.10.2005. The paper publication required the petitioner to report to his duty by 16.10.2005 failing which he would be deemed to be under suspension with effect from 18.10.2005. In spite of these various show cause notices including the paper publication, the petitioner did not turn up to join his duties. The District Magistrate in the circumstances directed for initiation of proceeding against the petitioner on 23.1.2006. The petitioner was thereafter proceeded against in a departmental proceeding on account of his continued absence. One Executive Magistrate was appointed as the Conducting Officer. The petitioner send his response to the charge memo before the conducting officer annexing certain medical prescriptions in support of his continued long absence. He chose not to appear before the authorities. In the circumstances, the authorities proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of medical prescriptions which the petitioner had submitted in support of his continued long absence from duty since October 2003.

(3.) The nature of the proceedings being conducted against the petitioner was not alleging any positive act of misconduct or corruption which was required to be proved by establishing any evidence or document before the Enquiry Officer. The absence was admitted. Whether the same was for sufficient cause or not is the issue which was the point for consideration in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer. Certain prescriptions which showed the petitioner to be suffering from abdominal problem, pain in the back and eye problem was placed on record through a representation before the Enquiry Officer by the petitioner. There was nothing to show that he was an inpatient admitted for any major serious ailment requiring him to absent himself from duties for such a long period. These facts are being taken note of from the averments made in the counter affidavit which have neither been replied nor disputed in the reply which has been filed.