IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.244 of 2008 Shriram Singh S/O. Bhaso Singh, resident of village Barahia (Srikant Tola, Bahapar), P.S. & P.O. Barahia, District Patna. Versus 1. The Union of India through secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Director General, CISF, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General, CISF Eastern Zone, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General, CISF Eastern Zone, Patna. 5. Group Commandant CISF, Group Hqrs. Patna. ----------- For the Appellant : M/S. Yogendra Mishra & Raghunath Kumar For the Respondents 1 to 5: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, C.G.C. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 14th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the appellant. The counsel submits that none of the authorities, namely, the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority considered the defence set up by the appellant and the evidence let in by him. 2. We asked the counsel for the appellant to read the evidence of the defence witnesses to enable us to find out whether the defence set up by the delinquent (appellant) has been properly considered by the authorities or not. The counsel submitted that he did not have the evidence that was let in before the inquiring authority. 3. It is apparent from the available material that Prakash Chand, a fellow constable who is alleged to have been abused and - 2 - slapped by the appellant twice was examined during the course of disciplinary enquiry. This fact is not controverted by the counsel. That Prakash Chand had stated before the inquiring authority that he was abused by the delinquent and slapped twice by him is not under challenge. In this background if the authorities held that the charge that the appellant acted in gross indiscipline and misconduct is established cannot be said to be flawed. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and the revisional authority have concurrently held that the charge was established. The only difference of opinion amongst these authorities related to the punishment. Since the order of the revisional authority is in conformity with the legal provisions and the procedural requirement, the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge cannot be said to be bad in law. 4. The Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-