IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11573 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar Singh S/O Sri Vijay Singh R/O Vill.- Kinger, P.S.- Kinger, Distt.- Jehanabad, At Present Posted At Kankarbagh Police Station As Constable .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Central Zone), Bihar, Patna 3. The Sr. Superintendent Of Police, Patna 4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Patna Sadar 5. The O/C Of Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna 6. The O/C Of Phulwarisharif Police Station, Patna 7. Md. Shamim, The A.S.I. Of Jakkanpur P.S., Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kailash Nath Diwakar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc11) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 2 18-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a Constable in the Bihar Police, is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 15.11.2008 withholding one increment equivalent to two black marks as affirmed in appeal by the D.I.G. on 12.6.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge itself was vague. It did not state at what time the petitioner was allegedly found loitering at the bus stand in police uniform with a police weapon. The petitioner’s defence was that at that point of time he was on duty in the Bank Patna High Court CWJC No.11573 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 2 and had produced the necessary register with regard to deployment of duty at the Bank. This has not been denied during the enquiry. Copies of deposition of witnesses were not given to him. He was not given opportunity to cross- examine departmental witness. The entire proceeding being contrary to the law, the order of punishment is not justified. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned orders to submit that the charge itself is not denied. The pleadings do not allege any procedural infirmities in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. It was for the petitioner to prove his defence by leading appropriate evidence of being on duty at the Bank, once the charge stood proved by deposition of the concerned A.S.I. in support of the allegations. The charge in the departmental proceeding was that on 16.4.2008 the A.S.I. Md. Shamim was on patrolling duty at the Mithapur Bus Stand with a posse of force, the petitioner not being one of them. He noticed that the petitioner was present in the bus stand with a police rifle and cartridges. On being questioned that it was a sensitive date of ‘Bihar Bandh’ to be present in the manner the petitioner was, the petitioner misbehaved with the A.S.I. by use of improper language and that he would act in a manner befitting himself. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge Patna High Court CWJC No.11573 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 3 contending that he was innocent. No one had made any complaints against him earlier. He was being targeted and victimized. He had lodged a complaint against the A.S.I. in question on 16.4.2008 itself. He was on duty with the Bank Guard Umesh Kumar at the Bank which could be verified from the guard register. He also mentioned the names of five persons who could support his defence as witnesses. The charge was alleged to be vague. The A.S.I. on 16.4.2008 at 12.15 had himself examined the guard register of the Bank and found the petitioner and Umesh Kumar on duty. No exhibits had been supplied to him. An oral enquiry may be held. In the departmental enquiry the A.S.I. in question Md. Shamim deposed as a prosecution witness supporting the charge. Another police constable on duty as a part of the police force with the A.S.I. in question had also deposed in the enquiry. The petitioner in support of his defence had only submitted his written defence. The enquiry report exonerated him concluding that he was on Bank duty and that the charge could not be confirmed from documents. The disciplinary authority differed with it and imposed punishment. The petitioner has not made any allegations of any procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings, but did seek to raise issues with regard to the Patna High Court CWJC No.11573 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 4 same in the memo of appeal. The petitioner in his reply to the charge never specifically denied that he was not present at the bus stand. The answers given by him were evasive. If the A.S.I. Md. Shamim proved the charge during the enquiry by leading evidence himself along with another member of the police deployed with him, the petitioner ought to have cross- examined Md. Shamim and the other witness. If the charge stood proved by Md. Shamim and the other witness, it was for the petitioner to lead his defence for denying the charge. The petitioner claims that he had enough ocular evidence available with him by way of five witnesses, but he does not lead their evidence during the departmental enquiry. No reason has been put forth by him. He claims that he was on duty with Umesh Kumar at the Bank. The entries in the Bank register sought to be relied upon by the petitioner was required to be proved by him. He did not lead evidence of Umesh Kumar. That he was fully aware of the need of the same is more than evident from his reply to the charge that he would lead oral evidence in support of the defence, but ultimately did not do so. The appellate order adequately notices that the petitioner failed to participate in the departmental proceedings on the designated dates and did not cross- examine witnesses. There is no pleading in the writ Patna High Court CWJC No.11573 of 2010 (2) dt.18-11-2011 5 application that the proceedings have been conducted behind his back and that he was not made aware of the dates fixed in the departmental proceeding. The Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ application is dismissed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)