IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1395 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 3119 of 2003 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.7789 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.1395 of 2010 ==================================================== Bibhuti Nath Jha son of Sri Bhulok Nath Jha, resident of Village- Laveni, P.O. Jarisa, P.S.Bahera, District-Darbhanga. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The A.D.G. Military Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The D.I.G. of Police, B.M.P. Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur. 5. The Commandant, B.M.P.13, Darbhanga. …. …. Respondents-Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 5: Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-I ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 15.9.2010. Interlocutory Application No. 7789 of 2010:- This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 11 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. - 2 - The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1395 of 2010: - Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20th July 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3119 of 2003 the delinquent writ petitioner has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant was a Sepoy, recruited in the Bihar Military Force. While under training a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for indisciplined behaviour and the acts of insubordination. After holding due enquiry, the imputation of charge was held to be proved against the appellant. By order dated 30th March 2000 made by the Commandant, Bihar Military Force, Darbhanga, the appellant was dismissed from the force. The departmental challenge to the order of dismissal failed. Therefore, the writ petition. Learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Therefore, the present appeal. We have perused the charge-sheet, enquiry report and the order of dismissal. We are of the opinion that the order of dismissal does not warrant interference. Learned Advocate Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that out of the four witnesses examined by the department one had deposed in favour of the appellant. One of the witnesses was not allowed to be cross-examined by the appellant. The evidence of the defence witness has not been believed by the disciplinary authority. - 3 - We are at loss. What the learned Advocate argues is in the realm of the appreciation of evidence, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. As to the cross- examination of the witness, it is apparent that the appellant did not ask for the cross-examination nor was it refused. The submission made by the learned Advocate cannot be countenanced. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)