IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8607 of 2003 UDAR JHA, S/o Late Sri Narayan Rai of village both P.O.- Adharpur, P.S.- Ghanshyampur, District-Darbhanga at present P.S.- Sinheshwar, District- Madhepura ….. Petitioner Versus 01. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 02. The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna 03. The D.I.G. of Police Kosi Range, Saharsa. 04. The S.P. Madhepura ….. Respondents ----------- 05 01.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally as a Constable with regard to dereliction in his duty in context of writing of the case diary, apprehending the accused and executing orders of attachment with regard to one police case. It is his case that he was visited with an order of ‘severe censure’. Insofar as not arresting the accused and not obtaining orders of attachment from the Court are concerned, it is further acknowledged on part of the petitioner that he did make an error in recording entries in case diary with regard to arrest and obtaining attachment orders. The submission, therefore, is that he is sought to be punished more than once for the same offence. 2 Learned counsel for the State submits that once the petitioner has acknowledged lapses on his part during investigation having serious repercussion, this Court may not interfere into the matter. The appellate order adequately notices that the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding and was also given liberty to cross- examine the witness when he declined to do so. The impugned order reverts him from the post of A.S.I. to Constable for three years that is with effect from 20.11.2001. Apparently the order has taken effect and has spent its time when the petitioner also appears to have come to this Court nearly after expiry of one and half years of the period of punishment had passed. This Court in the entirety of the matter is not persuaded to interfere more particularly when the petitioner himself acknowledges lapses on his part during investigation with regard to recording in the case diary and his duty vis-à-vis the accused. If the petitioner was visited with a punishment in context of the same investigation, it may be a matter for the authorities to consider with regard to quantum when the petitioner has been 3 unable to demonstrate any illegality in the departmental proceeding or that he questioned the very maintainability of the proceedings during the course of the proceedings and on the contrary participated in the same. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)