IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.675 of 2009 Pradeep Kumar Singh Son of Sri Siyaram Singh Resident of Village-Jamari Post Office-Jamari, Police Station-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. ……..Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. The Director General of Police, C.R.P.F., North Block Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 3. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Bihar, Sector Sheikhpura, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F. Eastern Region Sheikhpura, Patna. 5. The Commandant (S.G. 95 BN C.R.P.F.) 6. The Commandant 95 BN C.R.P.F., Patna Moinul Haque Stadium, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-16. …..Respondents/Respondents. ----------- 03. 16.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Union of India. By the order under appeal the writ court has refused to give a relief to the appellant/writ petitioner in respect of his dismissal as a Constable in uniformed service of Central Reserve Police Force. On behalf of appellant it has been submitted that the writ court went into unnecessary discussion as regards effect of confession and apology alleged to have been made by the appellant and hence the order under appeal deserves to be set aside so that the writ petition may be reconsidered on merits. - 2 - We have heard the matter on merits and we find no substance in the grievance that there was denial of adequate opportunity to the appellant to meet some of the documents produced by the officials in course of departmental inquiry. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based upon materials produced during the course of inquiry and in the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of Union of India there is a categorical statement in paragraph 8 (e) that the proceedings were carried out as per laid norms and the petitioner himself has admitted in writing that he has nothing to state in his defence and has no defence witness to be produced to rebut the charges leveled against him. Such categorical statement in the counter-affidavit has not been refuted in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the writ petitioner/appellant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the submissions we find no merit requiring interference with the order of dismissal passed against the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Vikash/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)