IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1836 of 2000 MAKESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 13/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner, a police constable, was proceeded against departmentally when he has been dismissed from service, upheld in appeal. From the records it transpires that memo of charges were served upon him. While the petitioner contends that no dates of hearing were communicated to him and of other procedural irregularities in the conduct of the proceeding, the records placed by the respondents in their counter affidavit and from the impugned orders reflect that despite service of the memo of charges, the petitioner never submitted any reply to the same. The order-sheet enclosed to the counter affidavit shows that more than sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to appear in the departmental proceeding. If despite service of memo of charges, the petitioner was sanguine about an invitation by the enquiry officer to appear at the proceedings, this Court finds it - 2 - difficult to grant relief to him. If the petitioner did not participate in the departmental proceeding despite knowledge of the same, the irregularities alleged by him are of no consequence. To that extent, the Court finds no merit in this writ application. However, this Court does find substance in the submission that for the occurrence in question for which the departmental proceeding was held, two police cases were lodged as Case Nos.4/97 and 5/97. In the former, the finding at the stage of supervision is that the firing attributed to the petitioner was in a measure of self defence when the police camp was attacked by a mob while in the latter the allegations are of willful firing. In view of the aforesaid, when the petitioner questions the quantum of punishment, this Court is satisfied that the matter deserves to be remanded to the authorities on question of the quantum of punishment in view of the discussion as aforesaid, in context of the two police cases and the supervision notes in the former case. Let such appropriate decision on the - 3 - quantum of punishment be taken by the authorities afresh within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Even while not interfering with the impugned order on merits the punishment is set aside only to enable a fresh decision on the issue of the quantum of punishment. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )