IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.922 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 15343/2008) 1. Savindra Prasad Singh, S/O Sri Jageshwar Singh, R/O Village Bakarpur, P.O. Bakarpur, P.S. Mohiuddin Nagar, District-Samastipur. ....Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bettiah. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Motihari, East Champaran. ....Respondents ---------------------------------- For the appellant: Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Yadav, advocate For the State: AC to AAG II -------------------- 5 01-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. By the order under appeal dated 1-4-2010 the writ court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant bearing CWJC no. 15343/ 2008. No doubt the disciplinary proceeding was conducted ex parte but the writ court has found that notices issued at the permanent address as well as the service address were ignored by the appellant and that the basic fact that, though a Constable in police force, the appellant was involved in four serious criminal 2 cases is not in dispute. On this ground, in our view, the writ court was correct in holding that non service of the copy of enquiry report did not cause any prejudice to the case of the appellant. The writ court has further considered in detail the law relating to the subject for upholding the order of dismissal passed against the appellant which was upheld in appeal and memorial also. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that acquittal in criminal cases should have been enough to drop the proceeding against the appellant. In view of law discussed by the writ court, we are of the view that the authorities cannot be faulted in finding the appellant unfit for holding the post of Constable in police force. The level and requirement of proof in a criminal case is different than that in a departmental proceeding and further the subject matter in the departmental proceeding was not whether the appellant has committed the crimes in question or not but the desirability of continuing a person in service as a Constable who was found to be involved in several 3 serious criminal cases. We have gone through the judgement of acquittal recorded in three cases. In two of them he was named in the FIR and in one of them he along with some others was allegedly caught red handed. It is difficult to guess as to why the witnesses subsequently refused to identify him or depose against him but we are in agreement with the views of the writ court that acquittal in the criminal cases, in a case of present nature, does not affect the validity of the departmental proceeding and the punishment passed therein. The last submission on behalf of the appellant is that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges and minor punishment would have been more appropriate. We are unable to accept this submission. For holding the post of Constable in police force, the person must be a disciplined person having no association with crime. Once the appellant was charge sheeted and tried for serious offences in four cases, in our considered view, the punishment is one which should not be interfered with. 4 We find no merit in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)