IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5946 of 2004 SANJEET KUMAR SINGH, son of late Ram Bilash Singh, resident of Pipraun, P S – Harlakhi, District – Madhubani. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Patna. 3. Additional Director General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna. 5. Commandant, Bihar, Military Police-13, Darbhanga. 6. Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. ----------- 05. 26.7.2010 Petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Patna District Police. That was some time in the year 1994. The appointment letter itself indicated that the appointment was temporary in nature and was liable for discharge with prior intimation. As part of the training process on 5.11.1996 petitioner was sent to BMP-13 at Darbhanga for undergoing training as a constable. While undergoing training under the BMP petitioner was deputed to the police line at Laheriasarai for law and order duties. On 17.2.1999 at about 7 AM petitioner did the vanishing act from the camp without any information, leave or permission. He returned to the camp on 18th at about 6 PM. On his return he learnt that the Sub Inspector Incharge, Ram Ekbal Rai had made a report against him for absconding. The report by the Incharge infuriated the petitioner. He not only abused or threatened the said Ram Ekbal Rai but even instigated his other colleagues in the training to raise slogans against the BMP authorities and pick up arms against them. The trainees boycotted the roll call and a serious situation of indiscipline was created in the camp at the instigation of the present petitioner. He was suspended and proceeded against departmentally for the various charges. 2 Based on the finding in the enquiry report the punishment order of dismissal from service came to be passed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of dismissal was too harsh for the charges and that any other punishment except dismissal ought to have been passed. No trainee was called as a witness. Only the BMP authorities were examined as witnesses in support of the charge and this had created prejudice against the petitioners as the BMP authorities would carry an element of bias against him. All these facts were also not taken into consideration by the appellate authority or in the order passed in memorial. Learned counsel representing the State submits that it was a serious matter of indiscipline where the entire camp was thrown into disarray and a divide between the trainees and BMP authorities was created at the instigation of the petitioner. No other view could be taken when the finding of guilt had been established in the enquiry. If the conduct of the petitioner is taken in totality, he not only indulged in indiscipline but had instigated all the trainees to revolt against their superiors and the petitioner was the person behind the incidence in question. As if his act of desertion was not enough he also indulged in instigating others to resort to indiscipline by not co-operating for the roll call and non-cooperation with the BMP authorities, who were supposed to impart training and discipline to these trainees including the present petitioner. Admitted position is that the act of the petitioner which led 3 to initiation of departmental proceeding was because of the incidence which transpired within two years of his appointment. It basically shows the mind-set of the petitioner that he was not used to living a life of discipline and command despite being appointed to a disciplined force. Since the petitioner had only put in about seven years of his service, no other punishment except the punishment of dismissal could be of any avail to him. In the opinion of the Court the charges were serious enough because the incident cannot be treated as an incidence in isolation. One has to judge the magnitude of the whole issue behind which the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner which created a serious discipline issue on the camp. In the totality the order of punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate or arbitrary as has been urged by the petitioner. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)