IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12133 of 2001 AJAY PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7/ 25-Sep-08 Heard the parties. Petitioner is a constable in the Special Branch (Headquarters Patna). Allegations were received against the petitioner that he was in the habit of torturing his wife by inhuman behaviour and that he lacked discipline and had filed some information in the Department with a view to mislead and suppress the actual facts. On such allegations petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding, on the basis of enquiry report (Annexure-6) which shows that the Department had examined several officers who had enquired into the allegations and their reports were made exhibits, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. That order date 10.6.2000 contained in Annexure-1 was challenged by the petitioner through this writ petition filed on 14.9.2001. However, during the pendency of his appeal the appellate authority, the Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Bihar, Patna by his order dated 12.2.2002 which is mentioned in supplementary counter affidavit found the charges proved against the petitioner but substituted the punishment of dismissal with a minor punishment of 2 stoppage of two annual increments which is equivalent to black spots for three years. The officials who conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and whose reports were produced during the departmental enquiry have been rightly relied upon and at the stage of enquiry the petitioner did not produce any defence witness nor examined his wife. Subsequently, it appears that the wife of the petitioner has given a clean chit to the petitioner on account of order of dismissal which has severe financial implications. But now, when the punishment of the dismissal has been substituted by a minor punishment, this Court finds no illegality in the conduct of proceeding or in award of minor punishment to the petitioner for the charges levelled against him. A police constable has to be a sentinel of law and order and his conduct in mistreating his own wife was rightly made a subject matter for a departmental proceeding. In the facts of the case, nothing is found to warrant interference with the appellate order dated 12.2.2002 and the original order of the S.P. to the extent it held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The correctness of the appellate order has also been examined by this Court in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that an Interlocutory Application has been filed yesterday 3 to challenge that order also. In the result, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. It is therefore dismissed. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)