IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2094 of 2007 KAILASH RAVIDAS, SON OF LATE KISHUN RAM, RESDIENT OF VILLAGE JAI RAMPUR, P.O. DHARAMPUR PATTI, P.S. BIHPUR, VIA BIHPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ARMED FORCES, PATNA. 4. THE D.I.G. MILITARY POLICE(NORTH DIVISION), MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-09, JAMALPUR, (BIHAR). For the petitioner : M/s Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Sunil Kr. Tiwary, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, AC to SC-III. -------------------- 02. 16.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.4385 dated 19.08.2006, Annexure- 3 whereunder the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna has refused to reinstate the petitioner in service in the light of the acquittal recorded for the offence under Sections-182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code under judgment dated 28th July, 2004, Annexure-1. Having perused the judgment dated 28th July, 2004, Annexure-1, I am of the opinion that thereunder petitioner has been acquitted of the offence under Sections-182, 211 of the Indian Penal Code on 2 account of failure of the prosecution to examine all the witnesses and the sole witness examined by the prosecution failed to support the prosecution case in its entirety. As the prosecution report made against the petitioner disbelieving the story of theft of arms and ammunition from his possession has not been found false and untrue under judgment and order dated 28th July, 2004, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.08.2006, Annexure-3. Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that prior to dismissal petitioner had exemplary record of service, which was never considered by the authorities while dismissing him from service and in appreciation of such exemplary record, instead of dismissing the petitioner he should have been compulsory retired. Aforesaid aspect of the matter was required to be considered by this Court while considering the writ petition filed against the dismissal order and not at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.) 3