Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) W.P. (S) No. 6211 of 2010 In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order as communicated vide letter dated 06.10.2010 whereby the request for setting aside the order of break in service passed vide order dated 07.08.2002 was rejected.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that the while the petitioner was posted at Divisional Jail, Madhubani, vide letter dated 07.07.2001, he was entrusted to adduce evidence in the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhanbad, and accordingly, he proceeded to Dhanbad. However, on return, he fell ill, therefore, he submitted application dated 28.07.2001 for grant of earned leave for four months and later on again on 19.11.2001 submitted application for grant of leave for further four months for purpose of making pairvi for his own case bearing P.S. Case No. 14 of 2000 in Buxar Town. But the Inspector General of Prison, Bihar without giving any show cause notice or being heard, issued office order dated 07.08.2002 whereby period from 08.07.2001 to 04.03.2002 (total 240 days) were sanctioned as leave without pay treating the said period as break in service. Being aggrieved the petitioner submitted representation dated 22.12.2009 for setting aside order dated 07.08.2002, which was rejected vide order dated 06.10.2010.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that respondent no. 4, after thorough enquiry came to the conclusion that the order dated 07.08.2002 passed against the petitioner awarding him punishment of break in service without asking any explanation and initiating any departmental proceeding is not justified and accordingly vide order dated 26.06.2010 recommended the Home Department, Jharkhand repelling the order of break in service of the petitioner passed by the Inspector General of Prison dated 07.08.2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted it is not the case where the delinquent proceeded on leave without any intimation and after discharging his duties to attend the Court at Dhanbad he proceeded on leave after due intimation due to his illness. But without considering the order passed by respondent no. 4 and the fact that major punishment of break in service has been awarded in utter violation of principles of natural justice, respondent no. 3 rejected the representation of the petitioner vide communication dated 06.10.2010. It has further been submitted that there are sufficient earned leave in the account of the petitioner and moreover, when the leave was sanctioned there was no question of awarding punishment of break in service and such punishment amounts to double punishment for one cause.;