Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State: 2. Petitioner, v/ho earlier served as Chaukidar, has filed this writ petition challenging the order bearing Memo No. 69 dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 whereunder he has been restraired from serving as Chaukidar on the ground of long absence of 14 years from duty. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the death of his grandfather, he was appointed as Awaji Chaukidar in the year 1985. In 1987, he was punished by serving Form-G directing him to deposit a fine of Rs. 15/-. Deposit of the aforesaid amount was not accepted by the Officer-in-charge, Ekma P.S. although petitioner continued to represent for acceptance of the amount before the Officer-in-charge and the superior authorities. In the light of his representation, notice bearing Memo No. 652 dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-2 fixing 30.8.2001 as the date for hearing his case by the District Magistrate, Saran was also issued. In compliance of the direction. contained in the notice dated 25.8.2001, Annexure.2, petitioner appeared before the District Magistrate, Saran and contended before him that Officer-in-charge is not accepting the amount of fine in the light of the instruction of the Superintendent of Police, Saran contained in letter No. 2047 dated 1.11.1988 and the subsequent instructions of the Police Inspector, Ekma Police Station contained in letter No. 1/89 dated 4.1.1989, Annexure-1. The matter remained pending before the authorities and petitioner had to file C.W.J.C. No. 2259 of 2004, which was disposed of under order dated 1-6.10.2004 taking into account the notice issued to the petitioner for personal hearing dated 25.8.2001, Annexure-2 directing the District Magistrate, Saran to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in the matter. In compliance of the order of the High Court dated 16.10.2004, the impugned order bearing Memo No. 69 dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 has been passed holding that petitioner remained absent for 14 years after imposition of the fine on the petitioner and on the ground of long absence, he has not been allowed to join the post of Chaukidar. Counsel for the petitioner challenged order dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 on the ground that while passing the said order, the authoritie's failed ~o consider the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Saran dated 1.11.1988 as also the instruction of Police Inspector. Ekma dated 4.1.1989 to accept the deposit of fine from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner challenged order dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 on the ground that while passing the said order, the authoritie's failed ~o consider the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Saran dated 1.11.1988 as also the instruction of Police Inspector. Ekma dated 4.1.1989 to accept the deposit of fine from the petitioner. I this connection, it was pointed out that Officer-in-charge, Ekma P.S. continued to violate the instructions of superior as he had already appointed Chandeshwar Rai in place of the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that as petitioner remained absent for about 14 years from 1987, his joining was not accepted. Meanwhile, another person, Chandeshwar Rai was appointed, who also died and in his place his son, Ganesh Rai has since been appointed. 5. From perusal of Annexure-6 itself, it appears that petitioner was appointed as Awaji Chaukidar in the year 1985. In the year 1987, he was found absent during supervision of the occurrence by the Dy. S.P. and for his absence, a fine of Rs. 15/- was imposed and on account of failure to accept the fine from the petitioner, his joining was not being accepted. In this connection, instructions were issued by the Superintendent of Police, Saran under letter No. 2047 dated 1.11.1988 as also by the Police Inspector, Ekma Circle, bearing Letter No. 1/89 dated 4.1.1989, Annexure-1 and with reference to those letters, petitioner continued to impress upon the Officer-in-charge of Ekma Police Station to accept the fine amount and to let him function as Chaukidar. It appears, without considering the effect of the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Saran contained in letter No. 2047 dated 1.11.1988 and the Letter No. 1/89 dated 4.1.1989, of the Police Inspector, Annexure-1 and the submission of the petitioner that he was continuously representing before the authorities to accept his joining, the impugned order dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 has been passed observing that petitioner was absent for 14 years which observation, in my opinion, is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the event petitioner was absent for long duration, he should have been proceeded against for the long absence and removed from service in accordance with law. Without passing a removal order against the petitioner, Chandeshwar Rai should not have been appointed. 6. In the event petitioner was absent for long duration, he should have been proceeded against for the long absence and removed from service in accordance with law. Without passing a removal order against the petitioner, Chandeshwar Rai should not have been appointed. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, order dated 17.1.2006, Annexure-6 is set aside directing the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra to pass fresh order taking into account the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Saran contained in letter No. 2047 dated 1.11.1988 and the recommendation of the Police Inspector, Ekma Circle contained in letter No. 1/89 dated 4.1 .1989 including the fact that petitioner has not been removed from the post of Chaukidar so far, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.