IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.833 of 2005 ============================================= Nandmani Giri , s/o- Late Mukund Giri, r/o- village Jamo Kathia, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Department of Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Railway Protection Force (R.P.F.) Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F., N.F. Railway Maligaon (Gauhati), Assam. 4. The Additional Chief Security, R.P.F., N.F. Railway Maligaon (Gauhati), Assam 5. The Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F., N.F. Railway Maligaon (Gauhati), Assam 6. The Assistant Security Commissioner, N.F. Railway, Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= 5 21-10-2011 No body appears on behalf of the petitioner. Same is the case with respect to the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 16.5.2000 (Annexure-8), the appellate order dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure-9) and the revisional order dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure-12). While serving as Head Constable at Katihar Railway Station under Prosecution Inspector, Railway Protection Force (for short “R.P.F.”), petitioner was departmentally proceeded against for diverse charges. On conclusion of the proceeding, in which he was given more than adequate opportunity, an enquiry report was submitted after examination of witnesses and exhibition of relevant documents wherein the charges were held proved. The 2 delinquent-petitioner was thereafter supplied a copy of the aforesaid document on his known address as he was unauthorisedly absent from his temporary Headquarters. The Disciplinary Authority, on a consideration of entire materials on record, concurring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and having found that the charge of leaving Headquarters without permission and remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty were held proved , imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The Disciplinary Authority passed the aforesaid order primarily on a consideration of the materials on record including the report of the Enquiry Officer that charge Nos. 1 and 3 were held proved which were serious charges. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred appeal. The Appellate Authority considered the appeal and passed order on 22.5.2001 rejecting the appeal wherein it was found that there was no procedural defect in the decision making process. Petitioner, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a writ petition in this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 13592 of 2001. By a proceeding dated 2.9.2003, this Court permitted the application to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file revision against the appellate order. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision application before the appropriate authority of R.P.F. The Revisional 3 Authority considered the revision of the petitioner and found no sufficient ground to interfere with the order of dismissal passed against him. On a consideration of the materials including the three orders passed by the authorities, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for invocation of extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction of this Court. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)