IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8939 of 2005 MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, Son of late Kanhaiya Singh, resident of Mohalla Thakanpur (Gardanibagh), Police Station Gardanibagh, District Patna …….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Inspector General- cum-Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 2. D I G, Special Branch, Bihar, Patna 3. Superintendent of Police (Security), Special Branch, Bihar, Patna 4. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Special Branch, Bihar, Patna …………Respondents ----------- 02- 1.5.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. Piyush Lal, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG III for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.5.2005 (Annexure 5), passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna, whereby the order dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Bihar Government has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents, as usual, have not filed any counter affidavit although copy of the writ petition was served upon them on 25.7.2005. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was a Constable in the Bihar Police Force and was served with the charge-sheet dated 17.11.97 (Annexure 1), whereby four allegations were leveled against him. He was caught red-handed along with others attempting to kidnap a businessman dealing with scrap materials, namely, Saryu Prasad, for which separate criminal case was started against them. The second charge was that he was absent on 16.11.97 without prior permission. The third charge was that he was continuously absent - 2 - from 31.1.96 to 21.7.97. The fourth charge was that he was involved in Kotwali PS Case no.288/91, dated 10.6.91, under Section 302/34, IPC, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceeding. The learned enquiry officer submitted his report dated 28.1.98 (Annexure 2), wherein as to the first charge, the petitioner was given the benefit of doubt. As the second charge, he was again given the benefit of doubt. As to the third charge, he was granted extra-ordinary leave for prolonged absence. As to the fourth charge, it was held that the petitioner is a criminal bent of mind and, therefore, it is unsafe to retain him in service. The learned disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 2.7.99 (Annexure 3). The petitioner’s appeal was also rejected by order dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure 4), and his memorial was also rejected by the impugned order. 3. On a perusal of the materials on record it appears to me that the principles of natural justice were followed, the petitioner was served with a crystallized charge-sheet with clear charges, and the prescribed procedure was followed. Indeed the petitioner did appear during the course of departmental proceeding. It further appears to me that the petitioner has been dismissed from the Bihar Police Force for appropriate reasons, he being a person with criminal antecedents. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl - 3 -