IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1250 of 2004 SUNIL KUMAR, SON OF SRI B. PD. SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BHIMPURA, P.S.- MANJHOTH VIA MAKHADUMPUR, DISTRICT- JEHANABAD :----- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE D.G. OF C.I.S.F., NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.I.S.F. EASTERN SECTOR C.I.S.F. OFFICE COMPLEX, PATLIPUTRA BORING ROAD, PATNA 80013. 4. THE D.I.G. OF POLICE C.I.S.F. RAURKELA STEEL PLAN PLANT, RAURKELA-11 (ORISSA). 5. THE COMMANDANT C.I.S.F. UNIT R.S.P. ROURKELA (ORRISA) :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE. MR. BINAY KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE. FOR THE UNION OF INDIA : MR. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH, C.G.C. ====== 5. 15.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the Union of India who also produced the records of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner on the basis of which impugned removal order has been passed. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served on the post of Constable. He is aggrieved by the order of the Commandant dated 21st September, 2002, Annexure-3, whereunder he has been removed from service after conclusion of the enquiry proceeding initiated against him pursuant to charge-sheet dated 21.5.2002, Annexure-1. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 6-9.01.2003, Annexure- 4 and the revisional order dated 14.8.2003, Annexure-5, whereunder the appeal and revision 2 filed against the removal order has been rejected. Perusal of the charge-sheet would indicate that petitioner has been proceeded against for three charges i.e. he is alleged to have manhandled A.S.I. Sri P.M.D. Nair on 13.5.2002 at 11 hrs. in front of a fruit shop at Bisra Chowk. Charge No.2 alleged against the petitioner is that he committed gross misconduct by abusing Head Constable Sri B.N.Roy at his quarter on 04.02.2002 at about 8.50 hrs. in presence of his wife. The 3rd charge alleged against the petitioner is that he is in the habit of being indisciplined and has been punished five times in the past and failed to improve his conduct, thus, proving himself to be incorrigible. 3. Petitioner responded to the aforesaid charge-sheet by filing written defence dated 15.06.2002 and 14.09.2002. Having considered the submissions made in the aforesaid two written defence the Enquiry Officer submitted report, copy whereof was given to the petitioner asking him to respond to the punishment proposed. In response whereto petitioner submitted his further reply and the disciplinary authority having considered the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report as also the reply thereto passed the removal order dated 3 21.09.2002, Annexure-3. The removal order has been affirmed in appeal and revision and the appellate, revisional order is dated 6-09.01.2003 and 14.08.2003, Annexures- 4 and 5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the three orders on the ground that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority is fit to be set aside as the independent witness in connection with charge no. 1 the fruit seller Sri B. Dubey in front of whose fruit shop the alleged incident of manhandling is said to have taken place was not examined to support the occurrence. Finding recorded in connection with charge no. 2 was assailed on the ground that wife of Head Constable Sri B.N.Roy before whom petitioner is alleged to have used abusive language against her husband was not examined. As regards charge no. 3 it is submitted that the earlier five punishment orders were not served on the petitioner. From perusal of the removal, appellate and revisional order it is evident that the authorities have explained as to why the fruit seller as also the wife of Head Constable Sri B.N.Roy was not examined. In this connection it may be pointed out that in support of charge no. 1 the officer who was manhandled by the 4 petitioner A.S.I. P.M.D. Nair was examined and Sri B. N. Roy who learnt about the abusive language used by the petitioner against him from his wife was examined in support of the charge no. 2. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the conduction of the proceeding by not examining the fruit seller Sri B. Dubey and wife of Head Constable Sri B.N.Roy. The appellate authority has observed in this connection that fruit seller Sri B. Dubey and wife of Head Constable Sri B.N.Roy was not shown as witness in the charge-sheet, as such, they were not required to have been examined by the Presenting Officer. In case petitioner desired to examine them it was open for him to have requested the Enquiry Officer to call the two witnesses for being examined in the proceeding but petitioner having not made such request to the Enquiry Officer for examination of the fruit seller Sri B. Dubey and Mrs. B.N.Roy, they were not examined by the authorities in the proceeding and at this belated state no such plea can be raised before this Court. As regards Charge No. 3 that the copy of the earlier five punishment order was not served on the petitioner at the relevant time when the orders were issued in the circumstances, those orders cannot be 5 used against him does not appear to have been taken by the petitioner in his two written defence dated 15.06.2002 and 14.09.2002. Counsel for the petitioner is stopped from submitting at this belated stage that earlier five punishment orders were not served on the petitioner at the relevant time. In the two written defence petitioner has only stated that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself before issue of the five earlier punishment orders. He has not made any statement in the two written statements that those orders were not served on him, as such, he was not aware of those orders. If the petitioner was aware of those orders and had not challenged them then at this belated stage, in my opinion, he is not entitled to question the correctness of the earlier five punishment orders. 5. Counsel for the respondents with reference to the records of the departmental proceeding (order-sheet) pointed out that during the conduction of the proceeding petitioner was absent from the proceeding on 01.07.2002 as he was taken in police custody and the proceeding had to be adjourned to 3,8.7.2002. 6. Having perused the impugned orders and considered the findings recorded against the 6 petitioner as also his conduct during the conduction of the enquiry proceeding that he was taken in police custody, I am not inclined to interfere with the three punishment orders. The writ petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)