IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13947 of 2001 GAJENDRA SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 26-Sep-08 Heard the parties. Petitioner has challenged the appellate order contained in Annexure-1 passed by Respondent No.2, The Director General-Cum-Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna whereby the finding relating to charges being proved against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry has been affirmed but the order of punishment passed by the lower authorities has been set aside and substituted by a lesser punishment. The earlier punishment was of reversion for three years from the post of Hawaldaar in Police Force to the lower post but by the impugned order petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Hawaldaar but was reverted to the basic pay in that grade for a period of three years. The materials in the counter affidavit show that on the charge of dereliction of duty and refusing to accept an order to proceed on guard duty, the petitioner was suspended and subjected to a departmental proceeding. The petitioner in spite of notice as appears from Annexure-B the order-sheet of the Enquiry Officer did 2 not appear in the enquiry and submitted no defence. The competent disciplinary authority on the basis of charges found proved by the Enquiry Officer awarded punishment to the petitioner. That order of the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad was affirmed by DIG, Magadh Range but as noticed above the Director General of Police by the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 interfered with the quantum of punishment and gave a lighter punishment to the petitioner. The impugned order also shows that on analysis of facts it was found that the Enquiry Officer had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to place his defence. The main submission urged on behalf of the petitioner is that he was not given the findings of the Enquiry Officer or any second show-cause notice with regard to proposed punishment. Now the law is well settled that ordinarily a copy of the enquiry report should be given to the delinquent employee before taking final decision in the departmental proceeding but it is also well settled that non supply of enquiry report does not ipso facto render the punishment bad in law. The delinquent must satisfy this Court that he has been prejudiced in his defence before the disciplinary authority on account of non supply of the enquiry report. In this case the petitioner had raised no 3 defence before the Enquiry Officer and he chose not to appear and file his defence. In such circumstances, the charges were proved on the basis of reports and evidence given by the departmental witnesses. The petitioner thereafter availed the opportunity of preferring two appeals and ultimately succeeded in getting his punishment reduced as appears from the impugned order passed by the Director General of Police. In the facts and circumstances, it is found that neither the petitioner has pleaded any prejudice nor he has been able to demonstrate any prejudice in his defence. It was next contended that according to Rule 828(b) of the Police Manual the petitioner should have been given second show-cause notice in respect of proposed punishment. On a careful reading of Rule 828(b) it is found that the said Rule only requires an information in writing of the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken against the delinquent police official so that he may be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. This Rule warrants only a notice at the stage of enquiry and communication of charges. As discussed earlier, such opportunity was given to the petitioner but he did not avail of the same. In the facts of the case, this Court finds no 4 merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been deprived of some monetary benefits such as arrears of pay on account of earlier punishment which was replaced by a lighter punishment contained in Annexure-1, if that is so then such dues of monetary benefits should be paid to the petitioner without any delay. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)