IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1387 of 2010 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10374 of 1996 Brij Kishore Singh s/o late Jai Mangal Singh, r/o village Pipra, P.O. Dularpur, P.S. – Agiaon, District - Bhojpur ……… Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Director General of Police cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar Patna 3. D.I.G. Military Police, Eastern Range, Jamalpur 4. Commandant, Bihar Military Police Service, Begusarai ………….. .. Respondents ============================================= APPEARANCE: For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit K. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. S.K.Jha, AC to AAG VI ============================================ CORAM : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 24/11/2010 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27th July 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in above CWJC. No.10374 of 1996, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant was a Constable in the Bihar Military Police. On 24th January 1994 a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for remaining absent from duty without leave from 17th November 1993 to 24th November 1993 and for forging 2 the signature of Incharge Hawildar Major indicating that the appellant’s leave was sanctioned. After holding the inquiry, by order dated 3rd December 1994 the appellant was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal from service was confirmed on 20th September 1995 by the appellate authority. The said order was confirmed by the Director General and Inspector General of Police on 26th August 1996 in the memorial preferred by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed above CWJC. No.10374 of 1996 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. The learned advocate Mr. Ajit K. Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the order of dismissal from service for absence from duty for 7 days is disproportionate to the guilt proved against the appellant and does call for intervention by this court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the provisions contained in paragraphs – 824, 826 & 843 of the Bihar Police Manual and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited & Anr. Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri & Ors., [2010 (1) PLJR (SC) 19]. Paragraph 824 of the Bihar Police Manual provides for punishments ranging from extra guard or fatigue duty to dismissal that can be imposed upon a police officer. Paragraph 826 provides that punishment 3 awarded should be in conformity with the gravity of the offence. Paragraph 843 provides for punishment for absence without leave. In the matter of Coal India Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the finding of absence for more than 6 months. However, the order of removal from service was set aside. In the opinion of the Hon’ble Court, the punishment of removal from service was not only unduly harsh but was grossly in excess to the charge proved. We have perused the records. The charge against the appellant was not in respect of absence from duty alone. It was also a case of forgery as recorded hereinabove. Besides, it has come on record that in his 8 years of service as a probationer the appellant had to his discredit 7 major punishments and 4 minor punishments relating to desertion and absconding without proper leave. Having regard to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant and his chequered service record, the punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be excessive, harsh or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) 4