IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3781 of 2010 1. CHHOTE LAL PRASAD S/O BHUNESHWAR PRASAD PRESENTLY POSTED AS DY. S.P., SPECIAL BRANCH, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. JOINT SECRETARY OF THE GOVT. HOME (POLICE) BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HQ) PATNA 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL (LAW & ORDER) BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHAMPARAN RANGE-CUM-CONDUCTING OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY 7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ----------- 2. 20.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was the then SDPO and Supervisory Officer of Chakia P.S. Case no. 42 of 2004 under the Arms Act. On allegations of having made corrections in the name of the person from whom the fire arm was allegedly recovered, replacing Ramashary Ram with that of Rajesh Kumar during supervision, he was departmentally proceeded with. He submitted his preliminary reply followed by a charge sheet when final order of punishment dated 26.10.2009 withholding one increment with cumulative effect has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the error occurred due to the extreme pressure of work, more particularly as the petitioner was involved on duty in Parliamentary election. No sooner that the error was noticed he made necessary corrections again. Charge sheet was submitted in the name of Ramashary Ram and Rajesh Kumar was not prejudiced in any manner in the criminal trial. Before imposition of the punishment no second show cause notice along with the enquiry report was furnished. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner has himself admitted that he made the necessary corrections by inserting the name of Rajesh Kumar originally in his own hand and pen after scoring out the name of Ramashary Ram. Once the charge has been admitted by him, nothing more survives. The impugned order states that in the supervision note the petitioner in his own hand canceled the name of Ramashary Ram and put in the name of Rajesh Kumar as the person from whom the loaded country made was recovered when the Officer- in- charge Chakia in his self-recorded FIR has specifically stated that the loaded weapon was recovered from Ramashary Ram. It further states that when show cause was asked from the petitioner he accepted the allegation but put forth a defence of a bona fide mistake. The charge related to deficiency in discharge of duties. The petitioner admitted the charge but put forward a defence of bona fide mistake. If the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted his defence, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court to sit as an Appellate Authority over the Disciplinary Authority. This Court shall only be concerned with the decision making process. But, if the charge is admitted, any infirmity in the decision making process may also not invite the interference of the Court. If the charge is admitted any infirmities in the decision making process are irrelevant as admitted charges need not be proved. Any procedural infirmities, in that event become irrelevant. Prejudice cannot be stated to have been caused to the delinquent by non- compliance of the procedures. The service of the enquiry report along with a second show cause notice would not have led to any different conclusion. In A.I.R. 1972 SC 32 (Channabasappa Happali vs. The State of Mysore) it has been held as follows at Paragraph-4 and 5:- “4. The pleas of the petitioner are quire clear; in fact he admitted all the relevant facts on which the decision could be given against him and therefore it cannot be stated that the enquiry was in breach of any principle of natural justice. At an enquiry facts have to be proved and the person proceeded against must have an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and to give his own version or explanation about the evidence on which he is charged and to lead his defence. In this case, the facts were two-bold, that he had stayed beyond the sanctioned leave and that he had proceeded on a fast as a demonstration against the action of the authorities and also for that he called the upliftment of the country etc. These facts were undoubtedly admitted by him. His explanation was also there and it had to be taken into account....”. 5...... It was a departmental enquiry, on facts of which due notice was given to him. He admitted the facts. In fact his counsel argued before us that he admitted the facts but not his guilt. We do not see any distinction between admission of facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts, he was guilty. The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of indiscipline and nothing less.” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)