IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.440 of 2010 ***** Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Sri Krishna Awatar Singh, resident of Village Bagha Chaur, Police Station-Tareya Sujan, District-Kushinagar (U.P.) at present posted as Constable no.12 Armoury Guard, Siwan, District-Siwan. …. …. Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda, District-Nalanda. 6. The Police Inspector cum Enquiry Officer, Bihar Anchal Nalanda, District- Nalanda. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, A.C. to AAG-2 ----------- 2. 12.3.2010. I.A. No. 2377 of 2010: - This is an application for condonation of delay of eight days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. Interlocutory application stands accordingly allowed. - 2 - L.P.A. No. 440 of 2010: - As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. In this appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 13.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1708 of 2008, whereby he has declined to interfere with the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee. The punishment that was imposed was stoppage of two increments equivalent to three black marks and nothing beyond subsistence allowance would be payable for the period of suspension. It is worth noting that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent employee who was a police official, on the allegation that while checking the vehicles on the road he indulged in accepting illegal gratification from certain trucks. His defence before the enquiry officer was that there was no number of truck given in the charge-sheet and neither was he permitted to examine the occupants. Basically, the ground that was urged that there had been violation of principles of natural justice. - 3 - On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is noticeable that the petitioner had admitted his presence at the spot and no prejudice has been caused to him in the enquiry because in the manner the enquiry had been conducted. The learned Single Judge upheld the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect but directed that the second part of the punishment which pertains to withholding the salary for the period of suspension was not tenable in view of the decision rendered in Dinesh Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2006(4) PLJR 55, as no notice to show cause was issued as contemplated under Rule-97 of the Bihar Service Code. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that an enquiry was held against the appellant; that he had admitted his presence at the spot; that he had not brought any material on record to show that he was not involved in the delinquency in question; and that plea not allowing him to cross examine the witnesses is unsustainable and in any case had not caused any prejudice to him. In our considered opinion, the order passed by - 4 - the learned Single Judge is absolutely justified and does not warrant any interference and, accordingly, the appeal being sans merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)