IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10088 of 1997 BIMAL BARLA SON OF LATE SHRI KUSHAL BARA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAIBABARTOLI, P.S. KAMDARA, DISTRICT GUMLA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MUNGER RANGE, MUNGER. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MUNGER. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh. For the State :- Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C. XIX & Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C. XIX ----- 3 19/08/2010 Petitioner’s departmental appeal dated 2.3.1996 was rejected by the appellate authority which upheld the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner. Petitioner was a constable posted in the district of Munger. Three departmental proceedings came to be initiated against him for identical charges of absconding without authorisation or leave. There were long period of absence stretched between eight months to ten months and three departmental proceedings, therefore, were held which were numbered as Departmental Proceeding Nos. 136/88, 96/89 and 63/90. In all the proceedings petitioner was found guilty. Keeping in mind the conduct of the petitioner and finding of guilt, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that retention - 2 - of the petitioner in the service was detrimental to the interest of the Police Force. In the writ application many a things have been stated that no proper enquiry was held, he was not given opportunity to cross examine and lead evidence etc. etc. but none of the grounds which have been now pleaded in the writ application was not even raised as ground before the appellate authority which is the stand of the respondents in the present case. Learned counsel for the State based on the assertions made in the counter affidavit along with supporting material has drawn the attention of this Court that so far as the first departmental proceeding is concerned, petitioner did participate but he chose not to push the issue beyond a point. So far as the second departmental proceeding is concerned, despite information and knowledge, it was practically withdrawal on his part not to participate in the said enquiry and, therefore, ex-parte enquiry had to be conducted. In the last departmental enquiry, namely, 63/90 petitioner had accepted his guilt. It was in these circumstances that the disciplinary authority was left with no option but to pass an - 3 - order of dismissal. Conduct of the petitioner is such that in every year he seems to be spending more time away from duty than on duty and that too in quick succession of one year after the other. Appointment of the petitioner to the Force was not made with the object of allowing him to spend 8-10 months in a year at home and not report on duty year after year. Conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not need any indulgence in the matter of award of punishment. This Court is of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds urged now in the writ application are more imaginary and not based on the actual state of affair which is reflected from the narration in the counter affidavit. The Court does not find any infirmity in the order of dismissal or the order of rejection in appeal. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)