Madhuresh Prasad JUDGMENT
Madhuresh Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.06.2002 bearing No 823 whereby the District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani has dismissed the petitioner from service with effect from 01.06.2002. The petitioner has sought a direction for payment of arrears of salary which he alleges to be due since 01.07.2000. He has also prayed for reinstatement in service.
3. The brief factual background is that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Civil Courts at Deoghar. On administrative grounds, he was transferred from Deoghar Judgeship, to Madhubani District, for which he was relieved in the afternoon of 28.04.1998.
4. Vide Memo dated 15.06.2001, the Judge Incharge, Nazarat and Administration, Jhanjharpur (Madhubani Judgeship) was directed to call for a show cause from the petitioner and to conduct enquiry against him. On 23.06.2001, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo calling upon him to submit his reply thereto. The Charge Memo contained four charges. Charge No 1 was that upon his relieving from Deoghar on 28.04.1998, the petitioner submitted his joining at the transferred place of posting in the Judgeship at Madhubani on 01.07.2000. Thus, he had not complied with the transfer order from 28.04.1998 till 01.07.2000. The other three charges, contained in the Charge Memo, allege that the petitioner has been absent without leave for the period 16.11.2000 to 07.12.2000, 16.12.2000 to 16.02.2001 and 20.02.2001 to 10.05.2001. Another and very serious allegation against the petitioner was that in respect of the period of absence, though attendance register for the dates of absence was crossed by the Presiding Officer indicating his absence, the petitioner has marked his attendance by overwriting upon the same without any permission.
5. As if this was not enough, the petitioner chose not to appear before the Enquiry Officer and avail the opportunity granted to him in spite of several dates fixed in the enquiry to enable him to appear in the proceedings, i.e., on 19.07.2001, 30.07.2001, 22.08.2001, 12.09.2001 and 03.01.2002.
6. Finding the petitioner guilty of the charges, the Enquiry Report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and was forwarded to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice dated 22.03.2002 (Annexure 10). Since the petitioner had continuously remained absent from his office at Madhubani, the second show cause notice was sent to the petitioner at his home address, i.e., at Deoghar. The second show cause notice allowed the petitioner 15 days time for making his response. The petitioner has, thereafter, sent his response to the second show cause notice by registered post which was received in the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Madhubani on 26.04.2002. Even at this stage, before the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has chosen not to appear or to take any step after sending his response by registered post.
7. From bare perusal of the petitioner's response to the second show cause notice, it is apparent that the petitioner has admitted to the long absence for the periods indicated in the Charge Memo. He has also admitted that he marked his attendance by overwriting though the same was crossed by his Presiding Officer on account of his absence. The petitioner, however, has tried to explain his absence by raising a plea of suffering with asthma. Regarding marking of his attendance, after absence being recorded by the Presiding Officer by overwriting in the attendance register, he has accepted the same also, but submitted that it was done after permission of the Judge Incharge, Administration in presence of the Sheristedar as the attendance register was kept in the almirah ........