IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.499 of 2010 4 29.3.2010 Smt. Sudama Devi, wife of Kamal Kant Choubey, Resident of village- Gullimahera, P.O. & P.S. Sahebganj, in the District of Santhal Pargana and at present Resident of Mohalla Surkhikal at Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur ...... Petitioner / Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur 6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur ...... Respondents -------- After considering the averments in the limitation petition, the delay of 176 days in preferring this appeal is condoned. The IA stands allowed. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order of the Writ Court dated 11.8.2009 whereby CWJC No.5749 of 2009 has been dismissed after considering all the submissions. The appellant was a Havaldar in the police force and two disciplinary proceedings appear to have been initiated against the appellant, one for not obeying the order of transfer passed in the year 1997 and other for not vacating the official quarters after her transfer. The learned 2 Writ Court has considered the submission that the memo of charge was not served upon the appellant and on the basis of original records perused in course of writ proceeding, a finding has been given that the plea was false and in fact, with great difficulty service of notice was effected and thereafter, all the papers were supplied to the appellant. The Writ Court has found that the entire disciplinary proceeding was conducted in accordance with rules and there is no defect or flaw so as to warrant interference with the order of dismissal which has been confirmed even by the appellate authority and higher authorities who have considered the memorial or mercy petition. If the matter was from some other department one could consider the plea that the punishment is excessive or disproportionate but disobedience of order of transfer for many years and refusing to obey the order of superior officers to vacate the quarters, assumes a very serious proportion when the charges are against a police employee. In view of nature of charges which have been found proved during enquiry, it is not possible to hold that 3 the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Gopal Prasad, J.) sk