IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8875 of 2005 Amrendra Kumar Singh son of Sri Bachanu Prasad Singh, R/o vill. & P.O. Anjana Kot, P.S. Motipur, Dist. Muzaffarpur. ---Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar,Patna. 3. The Additional D.G. Darbhanga Zone,Darbhanga 4. The D.I.G. of Police, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 5. The S.P. Saharsa. ---Respondents. ----------- 03 22.07.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner seeks to challenge order of his dismissal dated 30.10.2000 (Annexure-3), the order passed on appeal by the respondent D.I.G. as contained in (Annexure-10), and the order dated 26th October, 2004 as contained in (Annexure-12) passed by the respondent Director General of Police, Bihar Patna on his memorial. Petitioner while serving as a constable was transferred. After joining the transferred post he absented himself from duty w.e.f. 05.04.2000. Accordingly, a proceeding was initiated against him. On conclusion of the proceeding the report was submitted wherein the charge(s) was/were held to be proved. After affording him opportunity of show cause against the proposed punishment, the punishment of dismissal from service was afflicted. That order was affirmed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that on no previous occasion petitioner was found absent from duty. For compelling reasons i.e. his illness prevented him from attending to duty. It is submitted that the petitioner had rendered only 16 years of 2 service when this order came to be passed. In his submissions the punishment inflicted on him is disproportionate to the charge(s). It is submitted that aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appropriately considered by the authority. Quantum of punishment to be inflicted on a delinquent is the discretion of the authority. Normally this Court does not interfere therewith unless it is found shocking. However, from the order passed by the respondent Director General of Police (Annexure-12), it appears that the said aspect of the matter was not considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to file representation before the respondent Director General of Police highlighting the aforesaid aspect of the matter, who may be directed to consider and dispose of his representation in accordance with law. This Court records that no issue with regard to the finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer and the procedure adopted by the authority in concluding the procedure has been raised by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court would permit the petitioner to approach the respondent Director General of Police afresh by filing representation within 03 weeks along with a copy of the present order. If any such representation is filed the said respondent shall consider the proportionality of the sentence afflicted on the petitioner and dispose of his representation in accordance with law. If the said respondent, on a consideration of the representation and other relevant materials, is inclined to take a different view from that taken by him on his memorial 3 as contained in Annexure-12, then the said order passed by the respondent Director General of Police as contained in Annexure-12 shall not preclude him from passing a fresh order. The application stands disposed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )