IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.944 of 2007 LAL BABU SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Ebrahim Kabir,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Anant Kumar,J.C.to S.C.XI. 5 1.5.2008 Considering the averments made in the application for condoning the delay, we allow the same by condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. In a disciplinary proceeding appellant having been dismissed, he preferred an appeal. After losing the appeal, he filed a writ petition and thereby challenged the order of punishment as well as the order dismissing his appeal. The writ petition having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that his client approached the writ court without exhausting remedy of filing of a memorial. He stated that same charges were leveled against a few more and when they approached this Court in similar situation, the court permitted them to approach the Director General with a memorial. It was submitted that similar opportunity should have been given to the appellant. From the tenor of the order under appeal it does not appear that the appellant at that stage wanted to withdraw the writ petition for the purpose of preferring a memorial and, accordingly, did not give any such instruction to the learned counsel engaged by him. In stead the appellant wanted to seek relief on merits of his case and, accordingly, invited the learned Judge to go into the merits of the case. The alternative efficacious remedy of preferring a memorial, as was available to the appellant, was, therefore, conciously given a go-bye by the appellant himself and in stead he wanted the 2 writ court to decide the matter on merits. At this stage, therefore, it would not be fair on the part of the appellant to seek liberty to approach the Director General of Police with a Memorial. In the disciplinary proceeding, the allegation against the appellant was saving himself and his body, but not the arm which was given to him to protect the people of Bihar, and meek surrender of the same before the terrorists. The defence of the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding was that the terrorists attacked the picket of which he was a party in the wee hours of the morning when the appellant had gone to attend to his nature’s call and, as such, he could save himself and his body, but, inasmuch as he left behind the arm given to him, he could not save the same. It does not appear that the appellant could satisfy the disciplinary authority as to why he left the arm while attending nature’s call. Conclusion, therefore, as has been derived in the disciplinary proceeding, is that being scared, the appellant meekly surrendered the arm to the terrorists for the purpose of saving himself and his body. For such a finding the disciplinary authority has dismissed the appellant from the services of the Bihar Military Police on the ground that a coward cannot be a part of the Military Police of Bihar. Under the circumstances, the departmental appeal has been dismissed as well as the writ petition. We also find no scope for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Jay/ (Barin Ghosh,J) (C.M.Prasad,J)