IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.63 of 2007 Lalan Prasad Singh son of Bhairo Nath Singh, resident of village Chatar, P.s. Barhara, District Bhojpur, at present Housing Board Colony, Sector No. III, Block No. 8, Qr. No. 43, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna …. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Special Secretary Home (Police), Secretariat, Patna 2. Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patna Range, Patna 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna …. … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Gajendra Kumar Jha & Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocates For the State :M/s Krishna Ranjan & Vasant Vikas, A.C. to S.C.-15 03/ 07.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving on the post of A.S.I. in the Patna District Police Control Room. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and validity of the punishment order dated 9.1.2006, Annexure-6, whereunder after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, he has been reverted to the post of Constable for a period of three years. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2006, Annexure-1 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereunder aforesaid punishment/ reversion order dated 9.1.2006, Annexure-6 has been affirmed in appeal. Earlier, petitioner was placed 2 under suspension on 29.01.2001 on the basis of the allegations of Pappu Soni made in the written report dated 27.01.2001 that a police personnel riding his bullet motorcycle, bearing registration No. BHI-1390 approached him near B.N. College, Patna while he was on his way to Patna City in a three wheeler on the same day i.e. 27.01.2001 at about 7.00 P.M. forcibly asked him to alight therefrom and come near the Police Control Room where he was deprived of ornaments and other valuables worth Rs. 90,000/- by the said police personnel who demanded Rs. 50,000/- for returning the valuables and the ornaments. Pappu Soni, however, pleaded to reduce the amount whereafter police personnel agreed to return the valuables and ornaments on payment of Rs. 2,000/-. Pappu Soni then went to arrange the amount from his relatives, by the time Pappu Soni could return back, the police personnel had disappeared. Pappu Soni reported the occurrence under written report dated 27.01.2001, on the basis of which Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 19 of 2001 for the offence under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against unknown. During investigation of the criminal case it came to light that motorcycle bearing 3 Registration No.BHI-1390 used by the unknown accused to deprive Pappu Soni of ornaments and valuables is the personal motorcycle of the petitioner and on discovery of such fact he was placed under suspension under order dated 29.1.2003, Annexure-3 and departmental proceeding no. 65 of 2001 initiated and charge sheet served on the petitioner asking him to file his written defence. Petitioner filed his written defence dated 30.7.2001, copy whereof has not been annexed with the writ petition, but counsel for the petitioner on my request searched the same from the file and gave it to me for my perusal. 3. From perusal of the written defence filed by the petitioner it appears that petitioner joined Patna district police force on 26.12.2000 as earlier he was posted in Masaurhi police station. Petitioner disputed the allegation that he deprived Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables in the evening of 27.01.2010 at about 7 P.M. but accepted the fact that on 27.01.2001 while he was on duty near botanical garden at about 2.00 P.M. his old acquaintance Raju @ Syed Imran resident of Masaurhi came to him and asked the petitioner to lend him his personal motorcycle as he had to attend a patient at 4 P.M.C.H. In the light of the request of Raju @ Syed Imran petitioner lent his personal motorcycle to Raju @ Syed Imran who may have misused the motorcycle for depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and the valuables. It is also stated in the written defence that petitioner cooperated in the investigation in connection with Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 19 of 2001 which led to recovery of ornaments and valuables of Pappu Soni from the house of Raju @ Syed Imran at Masaurhi. In the light of the written defence petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to exonerate him of the charges levelled against him. 4. The Enquiry Officer considered the written defence of the petitioner and submitted enquiry report holding that personal motorcycle of the petitioner was used in depriving Pappu Soni of his ornaments and valuables on 27.01.2001. The enquiry report was considered by the Disciplinary Authority who being satisfied with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the personal motorcycle of the petitioner which was lent to Raju @ Syed Imran on 27.01.2001 was used in depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables and having been satisfied with the enquiry report issued 5 second show cause notice dated 13.09.2003, copy whereof is contained in Anneuxre-4 to this application. Petitioner having received the second show cause notice dated 13.09.2003 Annexure-4 submitted his reply dated 04.10.2003, Annexure-5 in which he relied upon the evidence of sole departmental witness A.S.I. U.C. Ram who stated that no incriminating evidence was found against the petitioner. In paragraph-2 of the reply petitioner dealt with the action taken by him in connection with earlier encounters in which criminals were killed. In the second show cause reply also petitioner did not dispute the fact that his personal motorcycle which he lent to Raju @ Syed Imran on 27.01.2001 was used in depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables on the same day during evening hours. 5. Having considered the second show cause reply filed by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna passed order bearing memo no.519 dated 9.1.2006, Annexure-6 reverting the petitioner on the post of Constable for a period of three years. While passing the impugned punishment order of reversion the Disciplinary Authority 6 relied on the findings recorded in the enquiry report as also the admission made by the petitioner in his written defence, second show cause reply. Aforesaid order dated 9.1.2006, Annexure-6 was challenged by filing appeal but the appeal was also dismissed under order bearing memo no.2043 dated 30.11.2006, Annexure-1. By filing the writ petition both the aforesaid orders have been challenged in these proceedings. 6. During the hearing of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that along with the second show cause notice dated 13.9.2003, Annexure-4 copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner and failure to serve the enquiry report on the petitioner leads to infraction of Sub-Clause-(2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and on such ground alone, the punishment, appellate order is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that documents mentioned in the charge sheet was not served, as such, petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. Learned counsel also submitted that after closure of examination of the departmental witness no opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine the defence 7 witnesses in the proceedings. 7. Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid three submissions. He submitted that by filing the written defence dated 30.07.2001 petitioner had admitted that on 27.01.2001 while he was on duty near botanical garden, Patna at 2.00 P.M. he lent his personal motorcycle to Raju @ Syed Imran and the said motorcycle was later used by Raju @ Syed Imran for depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables near the police control room on the same day at about 7.00 P.M. and with the cooperation of the petitioner during investigation the ornaments and valuables of Pappu Soni was recovered from the house of Raju @ Syed Imran at Masaurhi. In the written defence petitioner having admitted the part of the allegation never requested the Enquiry Officer that after closure of the prosecution evidence he be given opportunity to lead defence witnesses and as petitioner has not requested the Enquiry Officer for granting him opportunity to adduce defence evidence, the submission raised by the learned counsel that petitioner was not given any opportunity to examine the defence witnesses is wholly misconceived. The other submission that the 8 documents referred to in the charge sheet were not served on the petitioner also appears to be misconceived in view of the fact that petitioner has neither annexed the charge sheet nor has produced the same. The plain copy of the charge sheet which was produced by the learned counsel from the file of the petitioner does not refer to any document, as such, there was no occasion for the authorities to furnish any document to the petitioner, more over, in case petitioner required any document he should have made such request to the Enquiry Officer. Having not made any such request to the Enquiry Officer, in my opinion, it is not the stage to ask for the documents. In any case, the charge having been partly admitted by the petitioner that his personal motorcycle was used in forcibly depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables, failure to serve the documents has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Third submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry report was not served along with the second show cause notice also fails to persuade this Court to set aside the punishment order as during hearing of the petition learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring to my notice any 9 prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of failure to serve the enquiry report. Allegation that personal motorcycle of the petitioner was used for depriving Pappu Soni of the ornaments and valuables having been admitted, in my opinion, the punishment order passed against the petitioner deserves no interference on account of failure to serve the enquiry report. 8. For the reasons indicated above, I do not see any merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. Order dated 28.7.2008 staying the punishment order dated 9.1.2006 is vacated. Counsel for the petitioner states that presently petitioner is posted at Purnea. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Purnea for immediate compliance of the punishment order. Arjun/Rajesh ( V. N. Sinha, J.)