IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5749 of 2003 SMT.SUDAMA DEVI, wife of Kamal Kant Choubey, resident of village Gullimahara, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj, in the district of Santhal Paragana and at present posted in Police Line, P.S. Kotwali town and district Bhagalpur … Petitioner 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 Dy. S.P. Bhagalpur Police, Bhagalpur … Respondents. ----------- 8. 11.8.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The order of punishment of dismissal from service as placed on record by a supplementary affidavit dated 8.3.2003 and its appellate order dated 8.10.2004 is sought to be assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the memo of charge was never served on the petitioner as also the petitioner had subsequently vacated the quarter for which departmental proceeding has been initiated against her. Counsel for the petitioner had also submitted that the question of defiance of a transfer order would not arise as the petitioner could not be given relieving letter and finally it was submitted that the 2 charges against the petitioner being only either of defiance of a transfer order or not vacating the quarter, being trivial in nature, should not have led to an extreme order of penalty of dismissal from service. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of counter affidavit as also the records of the departmental proceeding would submit that there is no procedural flaw in course of departmental proceeding and that the petitioner was given all possible opportunity but she herself did not avail the same and as such, she could not be allowed to make a grievance on the merit of the charges, especially when it is to be found that she was a member of police force requiring the highest discipline. After giving anxious consideration to the aforementioned submissions, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has taken a false ground of memo of charge being not supplied on her. This is so because the memo of charge against the petitioner was framed on 16.6.2000 with five accompanying documents which were to be used as supporting evidence to prove the charge of 3 disobedience of her transfer order. Since the petitioner was absconding from duty after choosing to defy her transfer order, such memo of charge was sought to be served through a notice of Enquiry Officer sent to her at her known address in Mohalla Tilkamanjhi in Bhagalpur town but the petitioner on receipt of such notice from the Enquiry Officer dated 30.8.2000 had sent an information in writing to the Enquiry Officer that she had been operated and that she was under advice of her doctor for bed rest and therefore, a fresh date of enquiry should be fixed and in the meantime, the copy of memo of charge be supplied to him. In fact on 13.9.2000 the petitioner herself had filed another application to the Enquiry Officer wherein a grievance was made regarding non-supply of the memo of charge and the documents enclosed with such memo of charge and on receipt of this application of the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, he had passed an order on 18.9.2000 directing his office and one Pitamber Chaudhary, Sub Inspector of Police, to serve the memo of charge as also accompanying five documents. 4 The order of the Enquiry Officer contained in Memo No. 379 dated 20th September, 2000 was thereafter passed directing not only supply of memo of charge and the copy of the accompanying exhibits to the memo of charge but also informing the petitioner to appear in the departmental proceeding on 9.10.2000. There is no doubt about the service of such memo of charge on the petitioner because she herself had thereafter submitted a long representation on 9.10.2000 wherein while asking for some more time to appear in the departmental proceeding she had admitted that with Memo No. 379 dated 20.9.2000 she had been served all the documents accompanying the memo of charge but some how the first page of memo of charge was not served on her. Such plea of the petitioner being false and infact frivolous gets fully exposed because all these enclosures were part of the memo of charge mentioned on the top of the memo of charge itself and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner was well aware of all the charges and in fact such memo of charge was served on her with letter of the Enquiry Officer dated 5 20.9.2000. This Court in fact had also the opportunity to go through the entire records of the departmental proceeding from which also it is absolutely clear that the Enquiry Officer had given notice of each and every date of the departmental proceeding and the witnesses were also examined after giving information to the petitioner. If the petitioner was, therefore, purposely avoid to remain present in the department enquiry in the initial phase and later on turned up to cross-examine the witnesses, as would appear from her signature on proceedings dated 18.1.2002, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer had not given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in participating in the departmental enquiry. The first point, therefore, with regard to service of charge and/or denial of reasonable opportunity in course of departmental proceeding having been answered in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner this Court would find that the scope of judicial review on merit of the charges is absolutely limited. Reference in 6 this connection may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India & ors., reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is too severe or grave has to be also adjudged from the view point that the petitioner was not an ordinary employee whose defiance of transfer order can be ganged with lesser magnitude. The petitioner was an officer in the Police Department where discipline is of utmost importance. No Police Officer can be allowed to take a plea that he or she will not join at the transferred place of posting simply because it does not suit him or her. Her defiance of transfer order by the Police Officer by itself is a grave misconduct and when that was found to be proved in course of enquiry, no leniency could have been shown for her continuance in service. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she had not received the relieving order has to be also noted in the back ground of evidence on 7 record in course of departmental proceeding where from the record it was clearly shown that the order of transfer was served on her and she was asked to report at the transferred place of posting. If the petitioner thereafter ran way and did not collect her the relieving order and become absent unauthorizedly on the medical ground and that too without taking leave she cannot be allowed to take benefit of non-service of relieving letter. Even the Bihar Service Code would authorize an Officer to be automatically relieved if he or she becomes absent after transfer order. That being the concept of service jurisprudence where a Government servant and particularly a Police Officer not complying the order of transfer must get the severe punishment and therefore, this Court would not find any merit even in the last part of the submission regarding quantum of punishment. As a matter of fact the petitioner seems to be an officer with no control on her own activities. It has come on record that she infact had never been allotted government quarter and yet she had forcibly 8 occupied such quarter in a wholly unauthorised manner. Thus when she was asked to vacate the quarter she seemed to take a plea of her remaining posted at Bhagalpur. Consequently the plea of the petitioner that after the impugned order of punishment she had vacated the said quarter and therefore, the order of punishment should be reconsidered is of no avail. The petitioner’s conduct, therefore, as clearly proved in course of departmental proceeding required no lesser punishment than dismissal from service. These aspects have been not only considered by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority but also by the Director General cum Inspector General of Police, who had also rejected the memorial of the petitioner during the pendency of the writ application as would appear from the copy of the such order dated 22.7.2009 which was not brought on record by either party earlier and was available only in course of perusal of the records. All the departmental remedies, therefore, having been exhausted by the petitioner and there being no flaw in 9 the departmental enquiry, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and accordingly, this application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/