IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12008 of 2003 VIJAY KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 25.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.5.1999 dismissing him from service in the Bihar Military Police. The same has been affirmed in Appeal and Memorial. A memo of charge was served on the petitioner for unauthorized absence on two consecutive occasions when it also listed eight other charges against him inclusive of unauthorized absence on more than one occasion leading to warning and minor punishment which evoked no improvement in his discipline. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that charges listed as one to eight in the charge sheet with regard to his repeated misconduct inclusive of unauthorized absence, the imposition of minor punishment etc., are not denied or disputed on behalf of the petitioner. The next submission is that on 26.1.1996 the roll call was conducted on 7 P.M. instead of 8 P.M. to explain his absence. The absence from 31.1.1996 to 17.2.1996 i.e., 17 days is concerned, the petitioner was taken unwell and had 2 furnished documents of his illness in the departmental proceedings. It was next submitted that the punishment of dismissal was excessively harsh. Lastly reliance was placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3154 of 1995 to urge that notwithstanding the earlier misconducts of unauthorized absence, this Court set aside the punishment of dismissal. Subsistence allowance was never paid and is admitted to be so in the counter affidavit. The departmental proceedings therefore stand vitiated. The scope for this Court is to interfere with an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding is extremely limited. Only in the case of gross illegality in procedure, perversity of findings, violations of the principles of natural justice etc. does the writ Court interfere. This Court would be hesitant to simpliciter interfere with an order of punishment when it pertains to discipline in a uniformed force. Discipline is the very edifice on which a uniformed force builds its pillar of strength. Any interference by the Court on sympathy or technicality shall only affect the moral and discipline encouraging indiscipline with the delinquent hoping to ultimately obtain relief from a Court of law on technicalities. It is not the case of the petitioner that in absence of payment of the subsistence allowance he was prejudiced in participating in the departmental proceedings and putting forth his defence. The duty of the respondents nonetheless to pay 3 the subsistence allowance is an entirely different matter and admitted in the counter affidavit. The impugned order adequately deals with the manner of conduct of the departmental proceeding. Evidence was led when prosecution witnesses supported the allegation. The petitioner cross-examined the prosecution witnesses also. Despite opportunity to do so, he chose not to lead any defence witness and kept making excuses with regard to his illness. The enquiry disbelieved his defence of illness. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment as an appellate authority on the findings in the enquiry. From the charge itself, it is apparent that in a short duration from his appointment in April, 1991 he appears to have committed misdemeanors inclusive of unauthorized absence on at least eight occasions. Minor punishments have been imposed on him giving an opportunity to rectify his behaviour but he appears to be steadfast in his dislike for discipline as a member of a uniformed force. Once his defence has been disbelieved in the departmental proceedings, there has been no infirmity in the conduct of the proceedings, the non payment of subsistence allowance not alleged to have prejudiced him in the departmental proceedings, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with order of punishment. Reliance by the petitioner on the order in C.W.J.C. No. 3154 of 1995 is mis-conceived. A judgment has to be 4 read in its entirety and lines cannot be culled out from it to hold what it actually decides. In that case, neither was the charge sheet served nor copy of the enquiry report given. It was in those specific findings of grave illegality in the conduct of the proceeding that this Court interfered. Such is not the case at present. The writ application stands dismissed. Subsistence allowance was the statutory right of the petitioner and the statutory duty of the respondents. Someone failed to discharge his official duty. The petitioner is therefore held entitled to his subsistence allowance along with interest at the rate of 5% from the date that it become payable till the date that it is paid to him. If it has already been paid, the question of payment of interest does not arise. Let such payment be made to the petitioner within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the concerned respondents if not already paid. The respondents are directed to conduct an internal enquiry, fix responsibility for non-payment of the subsistence allowance to the petitioner and recover the amount of interest from the delinquent officer/officers. In no event, shall the Government bear the ultimate liability for the interest amount. Such fixation of responsibility be done within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5 Respondent no. 2 is further directed to ensure that a copy of the present order, more particularly with regard to the recovery of interest from the delinquent concerned is forwarded to the Accountant General, Bihar for compliance. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)