IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.150 of 2008 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 2077/2000) …………… Kamal Prasad Singh son of Sri Hari Nandan Singh, Resident of Village Birpur, P.O. Nachap, Police Station Murar, District Buxar. …………..Petitioner/ Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General- Cum- Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Magadh Range, Gaya. 4. Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad. ………… Respondents/ Respondents. ………… For the Appellant: Mr. K.N. Chaubey, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Jitendra Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ray S. Nath, A.A.G.3 & Mr. Manjari Nath, A.C. 4 28.09.2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2077 of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was filed questioning the order of termination of services of the writ petitioner- appellant herein passed by the disciplinary authority on the charges that the petitioner- appellant herein along with two others instructed a person to collect shoes and chappals on the podium where the out going Superintendent of Police was likely to come so as to humiliate him and secondly a stolen motor vehicle which mowed down two people, who died, was intercepted and three persons were arrested when the petitioner- appellant herein was also riding the self same Car. The ground taken before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner- appellant herein was that 2 there was no direct evidence and only on the basis of oral evidence it cannot be said that the charges stand proved. It has further been contended before the learned Single Judge that the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority on the basis of such oral evidence, to the effect that the charges are proved, is inappropriate. After hearing counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the material on records, we are of the opinion that this Court is not an appellate authority to sit over with the findings of the disciplinary authority as the charges are very grave in nature. It has been contented on behalf of the petitioner- appellant herein that no personal hearing was afforded to him before passing the order by the disciplinary authority. In our view such objection should have been taken before the disciplinary authority itself as such question would not stand for scrutiny under law. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. Accordingly, this L.P.A. stands dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)