IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18367 of 2009 1. JOGENDRA PRASAD S/O LATE NANDAN PRASAD R/O VILL.- BASWARIYA, P.S.- BATHIRA, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHAPRA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTT.- SIWAN 5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER ANDAR CIRCLE, DISTT.- CHAPRA 6. THE SERGEANT MAJOR POLICE, SIWAN ----------- 2. 29.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a constable in the Bihar Police was deputed for accompanying one Mani Bhushan Singh from the Siwan Jail for proceeding to the scheduled school to enable Shree Singh to appear at the B.A.-II examination for a paper to be held on 15.6.2007. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 16.6.2007. Charge sheet was then given to him for a departmental proceeding on 26.6.2007. The allegation was that while proceeding with the accused from custody to the examination centre, the petitioner unauthorizedly permitted the accused to visit his residence when the accused allegedly stayed there for some time also. The 2 petitioner submitted his defence when final orders of punishment were passed on 1.7.2008. Two increments equivalent to two black marks with effect on one increment and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance shall be paid for the period of suspension was the punishment imposed. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.G., Saran, Chapra who has rejected the same on 26.5.2009 declining interference with the punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused had in fact gone home to collect his admit card for appearing at the examination. In any event the duration of stay in the house was extremely short and admittedly the distance of 42 kilometer was covered in one hour forty minutes when it is also admitted fact that the road conditions were not good. The accused had also reached the examination centre on time. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, copies whereof have been served on the petitioner well in time on 19.3.2009. No rejoinder to the same has been filed. Paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit states that prior to 15.6.2007, the accused had appeared at 3 the examination on 24.5.2007, 25.5.2007, 26.5.2007 and 28.5.2007. The petitioner was one of the constables accompanying the accused on the aforesaid dates also. There was no occasion for collecting the admit card afresh on 15.6.2007 when the accused had been appearing on earlier dates of the examination when he could not have done so without an admit card. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court on the issue of the quantum of punishment as being disproportionate to the allegations. The petitioner is a member of a uniformed disciplined force. The standards of discipline which apply to him are fundamentally distinct from that which may be applicable to a civilian servant. If the person in uniform responsible for upholding and enforcing the law himself breaches the law, it does not lie with him to seek leniency in punishment for misdemeanors committed in a disciplined force to invoke issues of quantum of punishment. No other ground of procedural infirmity in the departmental proceeding has been urged and neither is there any reference to the same in the reply to the second show cause notice or memo of Appeal. 4 Once it has been proved in the departmental proceeding that the petitioner unauthorizedly permitted the accused to visit his residence contrary to the duty of the petitioner when the accused was in his custody to proceed from the jail to the examination centre only and back, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the orders of punishment. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)