IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.803 of 2008 PRABHAT KUMAR MISHRA ………………… APPELLANT Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F., GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.R.P.F., BIHAR SECTOR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA – 14 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.R.P.F., BIHAR SECTOR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA – 14 6. ADDL. DY. I.G. OF POLICE C.R.P.F.GROUP CENTRE, MOKAMA GHAT, PATNA 7. COMPANY COMMANDER (HEADQUARTERS) GROUP CENTRE, MOKAMA GHAT, PATNA …………………… RESPONDENTS For the appellant: Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma Mr.Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst. SG. --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 20th October, 2008 The only point that seems to have been urged before the single judge was with regard to punishment. The single judge held that the misconduct having been proved, the punishment order of removal cannot be said to be disproportionate. 2. The single judge considered the matter thus: “The thrust of the argument in the present writ application is more on the punishment which has come to be passed on the given set of charges against the petitioner rather than validity or legality of the enquiry as such which was held against him. If the misconduct of the 2 petitioner for which the present punishment has come to be passed would be first of the kind then may be there could have been an occasion for this Court to consider directing the respondents for imposition of any other punishment except removal of the petitioner on the ground of proportionality. But on a look of the order passed by the revisional authority contained in annexure -17, which is a detailed order giving all the reasons, as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has many punishments in his service record the Court cannot take a compassionate view of the matter and allow him to go back into service which is an uniformed and disciplined force. The present predicament of the petitioner is his own creation. If the petitioner had conducted himself in an orderly fashion then may be the present occasion would not have arisen.” 3. We find no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the single judge. 4. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-