IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1708 of 2008 RAJESH KUMAR SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 13/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.2.2006 which was subsequently revoked on 6.4.2006 and departmental proceedings started. The allegations were that he was a member of a police team checking vehicles on the road when they indulged in taking illegal gratification from certain trucks. The Superintendent of Police happened to arrive when the petitioner and his accomplices are alleged to have chased away the truck. After the proceedings concluded he has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of two increments equivalent to three black marks and that nothing beyond subsistence would be payable for the period of suspension which would otherwise be converted into earned leave. The defence of the petitioner is that there was no number of the truck given in the charges and neither was he permitted to examine the occupants of the trucks after summoning them for deposition. 2 The appeal and memorial of the petitioner against the same has been rejected. The contention on his behalf is that there has been serious violation of the principles of natural justice to his prejudice when he has not been allowed to cross-examine those against whom he is alleged to have demanded and taken illegal gratification. When power is vested in a superior authority of a rank of Superintendent of Police, there shall be a presumption of its proper exercise by him over his subordinates. But, this is a rebuttable presumption. The petitioner admits of his being present at the spot when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place but makes out a defence. Once the petitioner admits his presence at the spot and the allegations are alleged to have taken place in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, it is for the petitioner to prove his defence. What natural justice shall mean depends on the facts of each case. The petitioner belongs to a Unformed Force. Discipline is the foundation on which the force exists. As the protector he is alleged to have turned into predator. It is but natural that the moment he saw the Superintendent of Police coming, he shooed away the truck driver from whom he had 3 taken gratification. He now turns that into his defence. The petitioner has got away with a very light punishment. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same insofar as the stoppage of two increments equivalent to three black marks is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 515 (Dinesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) more particularly paragraph-10 and 11 of the same to urge that the punishment of withholding his salary for the period of suspension without fresh show cause notice in accordance with Rule-97 of the Bihar Service Code is not sustainable. The punishment is set aside to that extent alone. The writ petition is dismissed insofar as the first punishment is concerned, but is allowed insofar as the second punishment is concerned. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)