IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1316 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3116 of 2011 ====================================================== Amar Kumar, S/o Sri Suryadeo Prasad Sharma, resident of Bawan Bigha, Road No. 6, Kanhauli Khadi Bhandar, P.S. Mithanpura in the District of Muzaffarpur. .... Petitioner .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Director General-cum-Director, Bihar Police Academy, Patna. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Principal, Constable Training School (CTS), Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. 6. The Superintendent of Police, Constable Training School (CTS), Nathnagar, Bhagalpur. 7. The Assistant Director, Bihar Police Academy, Patna. ....Respondents .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 26-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 1st July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No.3116 of 2011, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1316 of 2011 (2) dt.26-09-2011 2 The appellant, a trainee Police Sub-Inspector, has challenged the order of discharge from service made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Bihar on 27th October 2010. It appears that on 12th September 2009 some commotion was created by the trainees in the campus of Police Training Centre, Nathnagar at Bhagalpur. The appellant was alleged to have spearheaded the said incident pursuant to the death of a fellow trainee at IGIMS, Patna. In view of his unruly behavior, the appellant was discharged from service on 6th October 2009. The said order was challenged by the appellant in CWJC No.17714 of 2009. By judgment and order dated 24th February 2010 passed by the learned single Judge, the said CWJC No. 17714 of 2009 was disposed of in terms of the order dated 23rd February 2010 passed in CWJC No. 17523 of 2009. i.e. the appellant was directed to submit a representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to make a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant made a representation which was considered in the light of the report of the enquiry dated 15th September 2009 made by the Assistant Director, Bihar Police Academy, Patna. In view of the said report the appellant has been discharged from service by order dated 27th October 2010 made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel). Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above CWJC No. 3116 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment and order dated 1st July 2011, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Chittranjan Sinha has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the impugned order is not Patna High Court LPA No.1316 of 2011 (2) dt.26-09-2011 3 a reasoned order and that it casts stigma upon the appellant. It is, therefore, not a case of discharge simplicitor, but a case of termination of service in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution. Unless there was a proper enquiry, service of the appellant could not have been terminated. He has also submitted that the termination of the service of the appellant is discriminatory inasmuch as other trainees involved in the incident have not been meted out the same treatment. We see no merit in the argument advanced before us. We have recorded that the termination of service of the appellant, initially made on 6th October 2009 was a discharge simplicitor. It was the appellant who invited a reasoned order. The appellant, therefore, cannot contend that the order casts stigma upon the appellant or is hostile and discriminatory. We are not impressed by the argument. It is apparent that in the incident in question several trainees were involved. The role of each trainee may not be the same. Those who instigated the incident may have to be dealt with graver consequences than others who may be the followers. No other contention is raised before us. We agree with the learned single Judge. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Anjani /- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)