IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8612 of 2004 Saday Shankar Singh, Son of Sri Vishnu Deo Singh, resident of Village- Gadhbaruari, P.S.-Supaul, District-Supaul. –Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G.-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police, B.M.P. Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Commandant B.M.P.-6, Muzaffarpur. –Respondents. WITH CWJC No.9154 of 2004 Kapildeo Uraw, Son of Sri Soma Uraw resident of Village-Belhawan, Laxmipur, P.O.&P.S.-Semra Bazar, District-Bagaha (West Champaran.) -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director General of Police-cum-I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Zone, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Commandant of Police Force, B.M.P.-6, Muzaffarpur. –Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha (In C.W.J.C.No.8612/2004) Mr. Bibhakar Tiwari (In C.W.J.C.No.9154/2004) With Mr. Manager Sah. For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, AC to SC-1 (In both) ------------ 05 13.01.2011 By these two writ applications, the petitioners who are member of the police force challenge their dismissal. They are both involved in the same incident and, as such, with consent of parties, the two writ applications have been taken up and heard together for disposal at this stage itself. The petitioners in the two writ applications apart from others were member of five man armed picket stationed on a road side in a disturbed area. The graveman of charge against them that they were negligent in their duty which resulted in extremist (Maoist) to over power them and run away with sophisticated arms and ammunition. The incident is not in dispute. The total loss of arms and - 2 - ammunition to the extremist is not in dispute. What is being disputed by the petitioners is that the charge was against them was that they were absent from duty whereas everyone found that they were present. In my view, in such proceedings the charge or the order has not to be read as statute. It has to be understood in the context. If one reads the charge and orders that follow the charge basically was of utter negligence in duty. That is a serious charge. There is clear evidence that there was virtually a mute surrender and all excuses were being made up for this decimal performance. In such a situation, I am not persuaded to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and, as such, the writ petitions are dismissed. On behalf of petitioners, it is then submitted that two other people of the same picket even retained in service. Thus, there is discrimination. In my view, Article-14 talks of positive discrimination and not negative discrimination. If others have been wrongly let off that would not give any right to the petitioner to be let off. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)