IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.206 of 2008 Jai Shankar Prasad Trivedi, son of Pandit Lakshaman Trivedi, resident of village-Dyalpur, P.S.-Anitchak, Dist-Bhagalpur ..Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The D.G.-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The D.I.G of Police, Rail, Bihar, Patna 4. The S.R.P. Muzaffarpur, Rail Muzaffarpur … Respondents ----------- For the respondent :- G.A.-9, Abdul Kumar Pandey, Advocate A.C. to G.A.9, Pawan Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the petitioner :-Sanjay Kr. Ghosarvey, Adv. Raj Kishore Pandit, Adv. 7 29.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.12.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2717 of 2005 wherein the appellant has chosen to question the order of dismissal passed on 04.03.2002, by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Muzaffarpur(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in pursuance of a departmental proceeding being Departmental Proceeding No.41 of 2001 on the charges leveled against him, which are as follows:- “On 11.12.2000, he along with constable 479, Om Prakash Singh was assigned the duty to escort Train No.5217 Down Kurla Express and after performing the said duty on 11.12.2000 at about 01.15 A.M., both the petitioner and said Om Prakash Singh persuaded one lady, Munni 2 Khatoon to come to their barrack for illegal/immoral purposes and even took her to their bed, but before their evil design could succeed, other constables came to the barrack and on confidential information, which was noted in the station diary, even the officer-in-charge came to the barrack and recovered said Munni Khatoon from the barrack in presence of the constables, present there and recorded the fardbeyan of the girl, Munni Khatoon, in which she categorically alleged that the petitioner and the other constable had persuaded her to come to the barrack”. It is a case where the appellant was not afforded an opportunity to cross- examine the defense witnesses specially the lady, who was alleged to have been brought by the appellant in the barrack. A counter affidavit has been filed before the learned Single Judge stating therein that the appellant has never chosen to ask an opportunity to cross-examine the defense witnesses. The learned Single Judge having gone into the merits of the case has observed that the punishment order is to be upheld. We also had the occasion to go 3 through the entire materials from which it appears that there is no material placed before us by the appellant to show that he has asked for an opportunity to cross- examine the defense witness. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has tried to convince this Court by arguing vehemently that there were four constables who have singed on the complaint, but we are not convinced with such arguments. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon two judgments rendered in the case of State of U.P. vs. Ram Devas Yadav reported in 2010 (2) SCC 236 and Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors reported in 2005 (II) SCC 525. But we are of the opinion that the facts of the cases cited above do not help the appellant in this case. Accordingly, by upholding the order of learned Single Judge, this appeal is disposed of. Ashwini (T.Meena Kumari,J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)