IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1041 of 2008 SAJEE AHMAD @ SAZI AHMAD, SON OF LATE SHAFI AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MEHSAUL, P.S.- RUNI SAIDPUR, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI ………. PETITIONER/APPELLANT Versus 01. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 02. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVED POLICE FORCE, BIHAR, BIHAR SECTOR, C.R.P.F., PATNA. 03. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, GROUP CENTRES, C.R.P.F. MUZAFFARPUR (BIHAR) DISTRICT AND TOWN MUZAFFARPUR. 04. THE COMPANY COMMANDER (ADMINISTRATION) GROUP CENTRE C.R.P.F., MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR, DISTRICT AND TOWN MUZAFFARPUR. 05. THE BATTALION HAVILDAR MAJOR (B.H.M.) GROUP CENTRE C.R.P.F., MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT AND TOWN MUZAFFARPUR. ………. RESPONDENTS For the Petitioner:- Mr. Shivendra Kishore, Advocate For the Respondents:- Mr. Sudhir Singh ( A.S.G.) & Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate. ----------- 02 09.01.2009 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13131 of 2000, has preferred this appeal under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner was member of the Central Reserve Police Force. He was granted leave for the period 7.10.1997 to 5.12.1997 and was required to report for duties on 6th of December, 1997. He did not report for duty after the expiry of the period of leave. A - 2 - proceeding in terms of Section 11 of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 was initiated and punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted. He unsuccessfully assailed the order of dismissal in appeal as also the revision application and both were dismissed. He assailed aforesaid orders by filing the writ application which has also been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the enquiry was conducted behind his back and that itself vitiates the enquiry report as also the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. Appellant was given notice during the course of the enquiry and if he has chosen not to receive the notice or appear in the enquiry, he has to blame himself. Mr. Kishore, then submits that the copy of the enquiry report was also not given to the petitioner. From the order of the disciplinary authority, it is evident that the copy of the enquiry report was sent to him and he had chosen not to accept the same. In such circumstances it cannot be held that the order of punishment has been vitiated on account of non- service of the enquiry report. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Versus Ghulam Mohd. Bhat 05 (13) SCC 228 rightly - 3 - observed that the order of dismissal does not call for interference by this Court. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed in limine. P.K. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)