IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.220 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 8424 of 2004 ==================================================== Amrendra Narayan Singh, S/o Late Birendra Kumar Singh, R/o Village- Dukolead, P.O.-Gopalkera, P.S.-Mohanpur, District- Gaya. - Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Poice, B.M.P. Central Zone, Patna. 4. The Commandant, B.M.P.-14, Patna. - Respondents . ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mrs. Asha Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. J.S.Varnwal, SC1 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 07.02.2011 This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 7th September 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC No. 8424 of 2004. The appellant-writ petitioner was at the relevant time a constable in the Bihar Military Police. He was posted at Jehanabad Camp. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for alleged acts of misconduct. It was alleged that on 1st March 2001 in the late evening the appellant left the camp; he returned to the camp in an inebriated condition; he picked up a quarrel with one Manoj Singh and started indiscriminate firing with his service rifle. 2 There were other allegations in respect of his mis-behaviour with the village people. On completion of the disciplinary proceeding, the imputation of charge made against the appellant was held to be proved. For the guilt proved against him vide order dated 22nd October 2001 the appellant was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was confirmed in the departmental appeal and the revision. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant challenged the order of dismissal from service in above CWJC No. 8424 of 2004. The appellant challenged the order of dismissal on several counts; that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution; principle of natural justice and that the alleged act of misconduct was committed by the appellant not in discharge of his duty. The writ petition was contested by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bihar Military Police, these allegations were denied. It was specifically denied that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses. The medical report about the inebriated condition of the appellant was also placed on record. Thus, the allegation of violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the principle of natural justice have not been found to be true by the learned single judge. That leaves us with the question whether an act of misconduct not committed in discharge of the duty can be made subject matter of enquiry. We may refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 3 matter of S. Govinda Menon V. Union of India and another (AIR 1967 S.C. 1274). In the said matter the delinquent, an IAS Officer, was charged with the misconduct committed while he was the member of the Board of Revenue. In answer to the similar contention raised by the delinquent, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “in our opinion, it is not necessary that a member of the Service should have committed the alleged act or omission in the course of discharge of his duties as a servant of the Government in order that it may form the subject matter of disciplinary proceedings.” In the present case, it is proved that on the date of incidence the appellant was in inebriated condition. He quarrelled with one Manoj Kumar Singh in the Camp. He used his service rifle for indiscriminate firing. In our opinion, the misconduct proved against the appellant, a member of the disciplined force, justifies his dismissal from service. The learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed. Sujit (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)