IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4729 of 2011 ====================================================== Manjeet Kumar, S/o-Mahendra Yadav, R/o Village -Fulhat Patam, P.S- Nayaram Nagar, District-Munger. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India 2. The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board, New Delhi 3. The Chief Security Commissioner, R.P.F East Central Railway, Hajipur. 4. The Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P.F. East Central Railway , Danapur 5. The Assistant Security Commissioner , R.P.F. Mokamaghat, Patna 6. The Principal, R.P.F. Security Centre , Mokamaghat, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Mr. Ram Naresh Ray Mr. Yogendra Kumar, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parashuram Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 05-09-2011 This Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, arises from the judgment and order dated 13th March 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 4729 of 2011. The writ petitioner, a Constable recruit in the Railway Protection force, East Central Railway, Hajipur, has been discharged from service on account of his failure to pass at the examination during the training. In view of his failure, in consonance with the relevant Rules 65.3 and 65.4 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 his service has been discharged. The Patna High Court LPA No.959 of 2011 (6) dt.05-09-2011 2 / 2 2 order of discharge has been upheld by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Dinu Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He does not dispute that the appellant failed at the examination as alleged. His only case is that some enquiry was held against the appellant pursuant to which the order of discharge has been made. The reference to such enquiry has been made in the order of discharge dated 30th June 2010. In answer to the appeal, the learned advocate Mr. Parashuram Singh has appeared for the Railway Protection Force. He has filed counter affidavit and has brought all materials and documents on record. The alleged enquiry papers have also been placed on the record. On perusal, it appears that the information regarding appellant’s consistent failure was passed over to the Head Office. The Head Office had heard the appellant in respect of his consistent failure and had opined that the appellant was required to be discharged from service in consonance with the aforesaid Rules 65.3 and 65.4. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant was discharged from service according to the terms and conditions of service. Such order of discharge would not attract Article 311 of the Constitution. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)