IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4335 of 1996 RAMASHRAY SINGH, son of late Kailash Singh, resident of village and P.O. Lahthan, P S – Agiawan Bazar, District-Bhojpur. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. Zonal IG, Patna Zone, Patna. 4. D.I.G. of Police, Central Range, Patna. 5. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. 6. A.I.G. of Police, Personnel, Bihar, Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner: M/S. Bibhuti Pandey, Senior Advocate and R P Singh. For the respondents : Mr. Debanjan Chowdhury, AC to SC 3. ------- 05. 26.10.2010 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has been dismissed from service for a set of charge which was drawn up against him and his some other office colleagues after they were caught robbing some innocent citizens who were on way to the railway station on the date of incidence, which is said to be 12.10.1991. As per the charge petitioner along with his colleagues were detained by the passers-by and even looted money was recovered. This led to the filing of FIR as well which was registered as Budha Colony P S Case No. 319 of 1991 under sections 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code. To be fair to the petitioner the criminal case ended in acquittal as all the witnesses turned hostile. The Court is not surprised because the said pattern is emerging whenever a police personnel is involved in a criminal case. It generally ends in acquittal since the witnesses for the reasons best known to them turn hostile. 2 But the issue had not rested at that. Looking at the seriousness of the mater as well as keeping the fact into consideration that the petitioner had been appointed to protect the citizens and not to rob them, a departmental proceeding was initiated. Finding of guilt came to be recorded against all the delinquents including the present petitioners, which led to imposition of dismissal. In earlier round of writ application filed by some other persons a legal question was raised that copies of the enquiry report were not served on them, which created prejudice in proper defence. The writ application stood allowed with a direction upon the respondents that they will serve a copy of the enquiry report, hear the persons and if the disciplinary authority and the superior authority came to the same conclusion as earlier, they were free to pass order in this regard. It is evident from the record that whatever infirmity of non supply of the enquiry report was taken care of due to intervention of the High Court and thereafter punishment in question has come to be passed by the disciplinary authority. The said order has been upheld in appeal and even in the memorial filed. It is not a case where any indulgence ought to be shown to the petitioner looking at the seriousness of the charge and the fact that the petitioner had indulged in an act which was totally detrimental not only to the morality of the police department but also shows his mindset towards the responsibility for which he was initially recruited. It is not job of a police officer to rob innocent citizens taking 3 advantage of the darkness when persons were proceeding to the railway station to board a train. The Court has gone through the entirety of the records. The evidence is there. Material being what they are and the finding given against the petitioner, punishment had to visit the petitioner of this case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that looking at the relatively young age, the responsibility of the family which the petitioner has to shoulder as well as the humanitarian consideration, some kind of a lighter punishment ought to be imposed instead of dismissal. This Court does not feel that charge and the findings being what they are require any lenient view in this matter. In fact, order of punishment of dismissal is rather apt and appropriate in the present case. No indulgence is required to be shown to the petitioner. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)