IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.181 of 2006 Abdul Rahman Khan, son of Late Md. Idris Khan, Resident of Mauza Jhuk Elahi, P.S. Obra, District Aurangabad. Presently residing at Police Line, Bhagalpur. ......Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, Bhagalpur. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur. 6. The Sergeant Major, Police Line, Bhagalpur. ....... Respondents. ----------- 06- 17.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. S.B.N. Singh, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate No.9. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No.14086 of 2004 (Abdul Rahman Khan vs. The State of Bihar and others), and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 1.2.2006, whereby the writ petition was dismissed, and the order of his compulsory retirement from the services of the Bihar Government has been upheld. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant had joined the services of the Bihar 2 Government on 11.12.1968, as a Constable. He was at the relevant point of time posted as Sub- Inspector of Police, and was attached with the Bhagalpur Police Force. He was relieved on 4.1.2000 to join Muzaffarpur Police Force, notwithstanding which he did not return his service revolver with the Bhagalpur Police administration. He admittedly returned the same on 11.7.2001. He was, in the meanwhile charge- sheeted on 3.3.2000, for unauthorisedly keeping the service revolver. The appellant was subjected to a departmental proceeding and was found guilty of retaining the service revolver unauthorisedly, leading to the order of the learned disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. His departmental appeal and memorial also failed, leading to the writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 3. It appears to us that the appellant did not make any attempt to rebut the charge and justify his conduct during the course of enquiry. It is clear that he was relieved by the Bhagalpur Police Force on 4.1.2000, and retained the service revolver unauthorisedly till 11.7.2001. Retaining the service revolver 3 unauthorisedly is high water-mark of indiscipline in uniformed services. The learned disciplinary authority was, therefore, justified in passing the order of compulsory retirement from service. The writ petition was filed on 8.11.2004, and discloses that the writ petitioner was 58 years of age on the date of institution of the writ petition. It thus appears that the appellant was deprived of service for a very short period. Law is well settled that an order of compulsory retirement does not deprive the employee of the benefits of past services. We are indeed left with the feeling that the appellant has been let off lightly. 4. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. For the reasons assigned in the order of the learned Single Judge, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, we dismiss the appeal. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/