IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10374 of 1996 BRIJ KISHORE SINGH, son of Jaimangal Singh, resident of village – Pipara, P.O. Dularpur, P.S. Agaion, District – Bhojpur. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. D.I.G. Military Police Eastern Range Jamalpur. 4. Commandant BMP 8, Begusarai. ----------- For the petitioner: M/S. K N Chaubey, Sr. Advocate, Nagendra Dubey and Siddharth Harsh. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG -7. -------- 04. 27.7.2010 Petitioner was dismissed from service vide Anneuxre-2. The order was affirmed in appeal vide Annexure-3 and his memorial too was rejected by the I.G. in terms of Anneuxre-4. 2. The reason of dismissal of the petitioner is stated to be his own conduct of forging signature of Hawildar Major declaring himself to be relieved from duty and absconding. It is also alleged that on 17.11.1993 petitioner was assigned telephone duty but he never reported for that duty. He returned back to the camp after seven days, i.e. 24.11.1993. The authorities decided to proceed against him. Annexure-1 is the charge-sheet. 3. It is recorded that the petitioner was only a trainee constable and had about eight years of service behind him and the present charge came to be drawn up and departmental proceeding held. The findings are against the petitioner and taking into consideration that the petitioner had a history of absconding, the authorities decided to impose the punishment of dismissal. It has emerged from the records that in the eight years of service, petitioner had earned seven major 2 punishments and four minor punishments mostly relating to desertion and absconding without proper leave. 4. Stand of the petitioner is that the allegation is false. He had already been granted leave for seven days and there was no occasion for him to forge the signature of the Hawildar Major on the Parwana and go on leave. 5. Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his conduct and cross examine the witnesses produced during the course of enquiry. From the record it emerges that he had two explanations to offer. One that he had put the signature of the Hawildar Major in good faith and the other that he had signed a plain paper which was subsequently used against him. 6. None of the explanations offered by the petitioner are convincing in nature in view of the findings which have come. The Court would have been willing to consider the case from another dimension i.e. the quantum of punishment and the proportionality of the punishment vis-à-vis his conduct but from the record it is evident that in eight years of service the petitioner had earned seven major punishments and four minor punishments for a similar kind of conduct. Such punishment and indulgence in the past has had no effect on the discipline or the conduct of the petitioner. All this has happened in a short span of eight years of service the petitioner had put in and that too in an organization which is a para military organization known as Bihar Military Police. 7. The totality of the facts read with latest misdemeanour of 3 the petitioner which has been found to be true bars this Court from interfering with the order of punishment. In the opinion of the Court , respondents have been indulgent enough in the past by not dismissing him from service despite him being a habitual deserter. Indiscipline of the kind indulged by the petitioner cannot be condoned. No case of interference with the order of punishment is made out. 8. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)