Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ-petition has sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or order/direction commanding the Secretary, Home (Police)Department (respondent No.2) to order for his voluntary retirement from the service with affect from 1-8-1991 from the post of a confirmed Asstt. Sub-Inspector of Police and to order for payment of post retiral benefits from the date he is allowed to retire under Voluntary Retirement scheme approved by the Government of Bihar, as also all other pecuniary claims and benefits legally admissible to him along with interest thereon. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that initially, he was appointed as police constable temporarily and later was absorbed and confirmed as Writer Constable in September, 1968. He was promoted to the rank of asstt. Sub-Inspector in April, 1975 and was confirmed on the said post with effect from 1-1-1979. In between 1968 and 1988 the petitioner claims to have earned several commendations for his hard work and good turn-out and that in recognition of the same was allowed to officiate against the promotional post of Sub-Inspector of Police from 18-4-1984 till 1989, but later, was reverted to the substantive post of asstt. Sub-Inspector with effect from 20th March, 1990 as he was found unfit by the Central Selection Board for officiating on higher post. 3. After his reversion he claims to have failed ill on 29th March, 1990 and reported such and proceeded on such leave under medical advice, initially for a week and thereafter for a fortnight in two spells. On the advice for expert medical care and treatment he came to patna and claims to have underwent treatment from 22-4-1990 to 30-6-1990, about which, according to him, a formal intimation was sent to the office of the controlling Officer, viz. the office of the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur. It is stated that after the petitioner recovered from his prolonged illness he reported on duty on 1st July, 1990, but his joining was not accepted and was verbally informed of his suspension with effect from 11th June, 1990, on the ground of his prolonged absence from duty. According to the petitioner, he was neither informed about the suspension in writing, nor any charge was served upon him, nor subsistence allowance paid. According to the petitioner, he was neither informed about the suspension in writing, nor any charge was served upon him, nor subsistence allowance paid. The petitioner claims to have sent notice on 1-5-91 for allowing him the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme from the date of his suspension viz.11-6-90 or any date thereafter, which was left unattended in the office of the Superintendent, railway Police, Muzaffarpur. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of the Superintendent of the Railway Police, Muzaffarpur claims to have moved the director-General of Police on 1-7-90 seeking voluntary retirement under liberised pension scheme approved by the government of Bihar. Since thereafter the claims to have sent reminders periodically from the year 1991 to 1995, but when there was no response, he filed the present writ-petition. According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 5.4.1941 and accordingly he is to retire in normal course on 30th April, 1999. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Director-General, police and the Superintendent of railway Police Muzaffarpur (respondent nos.3 and 4 ). In the said counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was discharged from service for gross misconduct, breach of discipline, desertion from place of posting without permission of the authority and keeping charges of pending cases with him on the basis of proceeding drawn against him vide Rail District Muzaffarpur No.99/90. According to the respondents the proceeding was conducted properly and the Superintendent of Railway police, Muzaffarpur sent the proceeding file along with finding of the conducting officer to the D. I. G. Railway, patna, who considered all aspects of evidence and found him guilty and passed Order of discharge of service against the petitioner. As such, according to the respondents the petitioner is not entitled for any of the aforementioned reliefs in this writ petition. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire so-called proceeding and the order of discharge are vitiated as the same was conducted ex-pane without any notice/intimation communicated to the petitioner. As such, according to the respondents the petitioner is not entitled for any of the aforementioned reliefs in this writ petition. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire so-called proceeding and the order of discharge are vitiated as the same was conducted ex-pane without any notice/intimation communicated to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the provision relied upon in the counter-affidavit to deny the relief prayed for in the writ-petition are not applicable misconceived, inasmuch as when the petitioner was never served with the order initiating the so-called departmental proceeding or the so-called order of discharge he cannot be deprived of the benefits arising from the rule/circulars of the State Government relating to voluntary retirement/and or the payment of the post-retiral benefits. 7. The learned Counsel for the state submitted that the entire sub-missions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are unfounded and based on misconception of the factual position. In this regard referred to the statement made in the counter-affidavit as the documents annexed thereto besides the original file dealing with the proceeding and the orders passed and communicated to the petitoners. In the counter-affidavit it is "stated that from perusal of d. No.760/90 the petitioner while was posted at Samastipur G. R. P. S. on 29-3-90 went to Samastipur hospital for treatment. The debtor granted rest for seven days. As reported by the petitioner the Doctor again granted him rest for seven days on 5-4-90 and 13-4-90. He thus, assumed to his duty on 21-4-90, but the fact remains that the reafter he absconded from place of posting without permission of the authority. It is also denied that any information was sent by him to the concerned authority regarding cause of his absence. It is stated that his whereabout was not known. He preferred to keep quiet for a long time and only after lapse of about six years he filed the present writ-petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs. Thus, according to the respondents, the whole episode seems to be an after thought or a cooked-up story after concealing certain facts before this Court. 8. It is stated that after the disappearance from the place of posting the petitioner was informed through registered letter vide memo No.1149/r. O dated 10-7-90 at his home address regarding his suspension with effect from 11-6-90 and of departmental proceeding. 8. It is stated that after the disappearance from the place of posting the petitioner was informed through registered letter vide memo No.1149/r. O dated 10-7-90 at his home address regarding his suspension with effect from 11-6-90 and of departmental proceeding. Further, he was ordered to report immediately at the office of s. P. Railway, Muzaffarpur, otherwise serious action would be taken. A photo copy of the said letter dated 10-7-90 is annexed at annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. 9. The petitioner absconded from the place of posting from 21-4-90 without permission and thus, was placed under grave charge for misconduct, breach of discipline and desertion from duty without permission of the authority. The conducting officer found him guilty and his finding along with the proceeding file was sent to the D. I. C. Railway, who on consideration of the entire aspect passed the order of discharge of the petitioner from service. It is stated that prior to discharge order second show cause was also issued vide memo No.1470/r. O. dated 9-6-92 and was served through special messenger at his home address. 10. It is further stated that no petition regarding voluntary retirement, which is claimed to have been made on 1-5-91 is available in the office of the railway, Muzaffarpur. Hence, the question of entertaining the petitioner for voluntary retirement does not arise. According to the respondents, as per the provisions contained in para 7-A of memo No. X-P-2-9-B/78/6490-Finance officer, Patna, dated 27-4-79 the petitioner who was facing a proceeding for grave charge was otherwise also not entitled to the benefit of pension under the provisions of voluntary retirement. A photo copy of the abstract of rule 7 (a) has been annexed as annexure-A. It is further mentioned that Rule 74 (kha) of the Bihar Service Code, which deals with the provision of voluntary retirement of government servant clearly states that voluntary retirement of such government servant is not permissible against whom disciplinary action is pending or awarded major punishment or punishment of discharge or dismissal. It is thus, contended that the petitioner has tried to avoid disciplinary action initiated by the department by raising question of voluntary retirement, which is not permissible under the said rule. 11. It is thus contended by the learned Counsel for the State that the proceeding was duly conducted and the order of discharge was duly passed. It is thus, contended that the petitioner has tried to avoid disciplinary action initiated by the department by raising question of voluntary retirement, which is not permissible under the said rule. 11. It is thus contended by the learned Counsel for the State that the proceeding was duly conducted and the order of discharge was duly passed. It was also submitted that the petitioner atleast has himself accepted that he was verbally informed of his suspension at the time of his so-called joining long back in the year 1990 itself. As such there is no substance in the contention raised on his behalf that he was entitled to benefit of voluntary retirement or any pensionary benefits. 12. I find substance in the sub-mission of the learned Counsel for the state. From the facts of the case and the records produced on behalf of the State it is evident that the petitioner continuously remained absent for a long period and has approached this Court after lapse of six years from the date of cause of action even according to his own case, as he claims that he reported for duty on 1-7-90, but his joining was not accepted. This itself sufficiently demonstrates that he was aware of the entire action being taken against him and still be avoided to participate in the proceeding. In any view of the matter, he did not move this court within a reasonable time since after his joining was refused and or even since after he sought for voluntary retirement on 1-5-91 as claimed by him but not allowed. This is sufficient to disentitle him from seeking any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which an expeditious remedy available to a citizen. However, his conduct by remaining absent continuously for such a long time also, in my opinion, disentitles him for getting any relief from this Court in the writ jurisdiction. 13. Under rule 46 of the Bihar pension Rules, 1950, no pension is admissible to a government servant dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency. The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was also started against him for absenting himself from duty without any application for leave or obtaining any permission much prior to the notice, which he claims to have sent on 1-5-91 for allowing him the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme. The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceeding was also started against him for absenting himself from duty without any application for leave or obtaining any permission much prior to the notice, which he claims to have sent on 1-5-91 for allowing him the benefits of voluntary retirement scheme. Under the rule aforementioned, if a government servant is acting a proceeding for grave charge, he is not entitled for the grant of permission for voluntary retirement, nor for the benefit of pension under the provisions of the Voluntary retirement Scheme. The petitioner has been discharged from service on the charge of misconduct and as such, under Rule 46 of the Bihar Pension Rules, no pension can be held to be admissible to him. 14. Thus, I do not find any merit in the writ-petition and the same is dismissed, but without costs. Petition Dismissed.