IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16631 of 2009 Bipin Kumar Singh Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Braj Nandan Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to AAG I ------- 2. 19.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appellate order dated 9.3.2009 which absolves him with other findings of guilt arrived at by the disciplinary authority but upholds the indictment on Charge no. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an objection had been taken in the memo of appeal that Charge no. 5 was vague. There was no specific charge of the nature of dereliction in duty. The appellate order wrongly holds him guilty of dereliction in discharge of duties. ]Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has not alleged any procedural irregularities in the departmental proceeding either at the stage of his reply to the second show cause notice or in the memo of appeal. The fairness shown to the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority of reversion to the post of Clerk and refixation of his pay scale at the bottom has been done away and the Appellate Authority has imposed only stoppage of three increments with non cumulative effect and censure both of which are minor punishments. The petitioner was an Assistant Jailor at the District Jail, Lakhisarai. For a death occurring in custody five charges were framed against him which were all interconnected. The charge originally was of having caused death in custody. The petitioner in his reply denied that death was caused in custody and that he was negligent in any manner in the discharge of his duties in noticing events and sending for treatment to the hospital. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report exonerating the petitioner of Charge nos. 3 and 4 but held him guilty of charge nos. 1, 2 and 5 whereafter the original punishment followed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority did not uphold the finding of guilt on charge nos. 1 and 2 but upheld the finding of guilt on charge no. 5 only, modifying the punishment. The enquiry report notices that in reply to charge no. 5 the petitioner during the enquiry had acknowledged that after getting information about illness of accused Khilari Singh he did not take steps immediately by going to Ward No. 11. The finding arrived at was that he was thus guilty for violating Rule 228 of the Jail Manual dealing with safe custody of prisoners. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot reassess the findings of fact. The appellate order appears to be well considered and reasoned when it exonerates the petitioner on charge nos. 1 & 2 also and refuses to exonerate him on the charge of dereliction in duty with regard to charge no. 5 alone. The Court is not persuaded to interfere with what is otherwise a well considered appellate order. The writ application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)