IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.1218 of 2010
Mahesh Kumar Baitha son of late Deo Narain Ram,
resident of Village Motipur Jumeda, PO & PS Motipur,
Distt. Muzaffarpur .....Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
3. The Deputy Director General of Police (Special
Branch), Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range,
Muzaffarpur
5. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur
6. The Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur
....Respondents/Respondents
-----------
02- 6/7/2011 Heard Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh for the appellant, and
Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel VII,
for the respondents. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent
of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by the
petitioner of CWJC No. 15421 of 2007, and is aggrieved by the order
dated 24.6.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court,
whereby the writ petition has been dismissed and the order of the
respondent authorities dispensing with the services of the appellant on
the ground of abandonment of the job has been upheld.
2. We have perused the materials on record and
considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It
appears to us that the appellant’s father was in the services of the
Bihar Government. He died while still in harness leading to the
appellant’s appointment on compassionate ground in March 1989.
While he was undergoing training at Muzaffarpur camp, he left the
centre on 26.3.93 without any information to the authorities. After
waiting for four years, the respondent authorities declared him as
2
absconder and dismissed him from service. The appellant’s plea of
being absent for such a long time on the ground of psychological
treatment has been rejected by the learned Single Judge as an attempt
to cover up his absence without information or prior permission from
the competent authorities. The learned Single Judge has examined the
medical certificate produced by the appellant and is of the view that
the same is a got up document to cover up his case and not worthy of
reliance. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant has
acted similarly in the past also. We, therefore, agree with the order of
the respondent authorities which has rightly been upheld by the
learned Single Judge.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
( S K Katriar )
( Vikash Jain )
mrl