IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5187 of 2006 Ram Kumar Singh son of late Ram Gobind Singh resident of village Guda, P.S. Khajuria, P.S. Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. ................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Old Secretariats, Patna. 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police, Head Quarter, Bihar, Patna. 4. The D.I.G. of Police, Champaran Range, Bettiah. 5. The S.P. Motihari. .............Respondents. 2 4.11.2010 After a departmental proceeding was conducted against the petitioner, the order of punishment of dismissal has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, East Champaran, Bettiah. The order is annexed as annexure 3 which is under challenge in the writ application. Since the appeal as well as memorial have been rejected against the said order, contained in Annexures 4 and 5, petitioner wants quashing of all the three Annexures. Short facts leading to initiation of the departmental proceeding is that the petitioner was a constable and was deputed as Personal Security Guard of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikarhana, East Champaran at Motihari. On 7.9.1999 at about 10.30 in the night petitioner in his civil dress carried his official weapon accompanied by the Clerk of the Sub-Division Office, went to visit a lady of questionable character under the jurisdiction of Turkaulia P.S.. Petitioner entered into a heated argument with one Krishna Kumar. He got provoked and fired from his official revolver causing injury to him. Villagers gathered who brutally assaulted his accomplice but he escaped. The incident lead to institution of Turkaulia P.S. Case no. 225 2 of 1999 under Sections 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Naturally the incident of this kind did not go unnoticed. When the matter was brought to the knowledge of the disciplinary authority, petitioner as put under suspension and a set of charges were drawn up which is annexed as annexure 1 to the writ application. Additional allegation made against the petitioner is that after the incident he went missing for 4 days. He only surfaced thereafter and deposited his arms and it seems that he procured a bullet from illegal sources to ensure full accounting of the bullets which were issued to him in his official capacity. Enquiry was held where it seems the petitioner chose not to participate but evidence was led witnesses were examined and the finding of guilt came to be recorded against the petitioner in this regard. Based on the out come of the enquiry report the disciplinary authority issued him a show cause before the order of punishment contained in annexure 3 came to be passed. Counsel for the petitioner has many submissions to make against punishment order as well as in the manner in which proceeding had been conducted. He submits that he was not given proper opportunity, that the witnesses were examined behind his back and that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. He also contended that he was prevented from leading evidence and all this affected the fairness of the enquiry. These submissions have been made on the basis of the grounds taken by him in the second show-cause, which has been 3 annexed as annexure 2. The so called legal infirmities pointed out by the petitioner would have merited consideration if there was proper pleadings, duly supported by evidence that these issues were raised as a complaint on these counts were placed before enquiry officer and was ignored. There is no pleading nor evidence that the petitioner ever demanded that he be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses or that he should be permitted to lead evidence in defence or that he be given proper opportunity to defend himself. Questions which an after thought as was raised only for the sake argument at the level of the disciplinary authority or before this Court does not deserve serious consideration. These objections could be considered by the court or the disciplinary authority provided the basic facts related thereto are available on record to support such a stand as it makes out a case of violations which is being talked about. The fact is that the petitioner had chosen not to participate in the enquiry, for the reason best known to him. The Authorities had to proceed in the matter. Evidence did come and evidence did corroborate the charges which were levelled against the petitioner. Those are reflected from the order passed by the authorities and it also indicates the circumstance under which such a decision came to be taken. The findings are there which supports the allegation which in the opinion of the court are rather serious. Petitioner was not appointed in the police force to misuse his position and power against citizens. In the given background and the material there is no reason to 4 interfere with the punishment orders. Before parting with this order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner otherwise had a clean record and had 18 years of service to his credit. He has to suffer due to the departmental proceeding and this should have been a factor taken into consideration while awarding punishment in question. The quantum of punishment does not come into play in the present case. Looking at the seriousness of the charge and the evidence, the punishment cannot be said to be excessive or harsh. The conduct of the petitioner does not require a relook at the punishment. The case has no merit it is dismissed. Bhardwaj ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)