IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14554 of 2005 BHIM KUMAR ROY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. V.B. Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.C. to S.C. -------------- 5 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 28.6.2004 contained in Annexure – 4, by virtue of which petitioner has been dismissed from service. The order of punishment has been awarded under section 41(c) of the Boarder Security Forces Act, 1968, which is, attempt to commit suicide. This order of punishment has been upheld appeal, as would be evident on perusal of Annexure – 6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he did not get adequate opportunity to defend himself. The evidence which has come based on which the finding of guilt has been recorded is doubtful and that he deserves some mercy in the matter, looking at the fact that he has served the organization for almost 16 years. 2 In the counter affidavit, an objection had been raised with regard to maintainability of the writ application, on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Since, a detailed counter affidavit even on the merit has already been filed with no clear averment whether the order impugned in question shall serve upon the petitioner either in West Bengal or at Bihar, the Court decided to consider the matter on its own merits. It may not be relevant for the present adjudication of the issues raised in the writ but, in the counter affidavit, it seems that the petitioner has not had a very satisfactory service record. 16 years in the service as earned him many punishments for various charges of omission and commission and even deterrent punishment at times has not had a deterrent effect on him. In so far as the present charge of attempting to commit suicide is concerned, it is evident from record that such an act was attempted by the petitioner and of the many witnesses who are examined by the prosecution established the same. The petitioner was given opportunity to cross-examine them, which he did. It is also taken note of that the petitioner at one point of time 3 even accepted his guilt, If the sum essence of inquiry did prove the charge against the petitioner, can not be said that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing or that the order of punishment is harsh. The conduct of the petitioner in the given issue and the track and field record of his service does not allow this Court to take a lenient view of the matter, more so, when the petitioner belongs to a disciplined force where a higher level of discipline and good conduct is expected and warranted. The writ application has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)