IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.231 of 2011 CHHOTE LAL PRASAD SON OF BHUNESHWAR PRASAD, PRESENTLY POSTED AS DEPUTY S.P. SPECIAL BRANCH, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA………………………….. APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JOINT SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. HOME ( POLICE ), BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HQ), PATNA 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ( LAW AND ORDER ), BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHAMPARAN RANGE-CUM- CONDUCTING OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI………………………………………… RESPONDENTS ----------- FOR APPELLANT :- MR. MITHILESH KUMAR RAI, ADVOCATE, MR. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE MRS VANDNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE :- MR. MANOJ PRIYADARSHI, S.C. 17 MR. SANJEEV KUMAR, A.C. TO S.C.-17 ----------- 6 21-6-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. On account of some charges proved in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the appellant, he has been awarded the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The substance of the charge held against the appellant is that as a supervising officer in the police force, while submitting his supervision report in respect of a criminal case under the Arms Act, in the 2 conclusion the recovery of fire arm, a loaded pistol, was wrongly shown to be from the possession of co-accused Rajesh Kumar in place of accused Ramashray Ram.S The writ court found that the show cause submitted by the petitioner did not dispute the allegation that in the supervision report recovery of loaded fire arm was wrongly shown from another co-accused Rajesh Kumar whereas as per prosecution case and evidence on record the recovery was from Ramashray Ram. In respect of grievance of procedural infirmities such as non-furnishing of copy of enquiry report the writ court relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1972 S.C. 32 ( Channabasappa Happali Vrs. The State of Mysore) and held that no prejudice was caused to the delinquent by alleged lapses of procedure. We have also perused the enquiry report as well as the show cause filed by the appellant and in the facts of the case we do not find any good material to take a different view. The enquiry report correctly mentions the fact that serious allegation was wrongly shown against Rajesh Kumar and as per evidence on record some correction was allegedly made in various copies of the inspection report submitted to 3 others by the appellant but no written correction was ever issued, particularly to the Investigating Officer and the correction was never carried out as per procedure. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. Let the original records be returned to the learned counsel for the State. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Vijayendra Nath, J)