IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8424 of 2004 AMRENDRA NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE BIRENDRA KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL-DUKOLEAD PO-GOPALKERA PS-MOHANPUR, DISTT- GAYA-----PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE D.G.OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE D.I.G.OF POLICE BMP CENTRAL ZONE, PATNA 4. THE COMMANDANT BMP-14,PATNA------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendra Pd.Singh, Senior Advocate with M/s R.K.Singh, Omkar Kumar & N.K.Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. --------- 4 7 /9/2010 Petitioner was a constable appointed on 30.10.1986 under Bihar Military Police (BMP). For certain charges of serious misconduct a departmental proceeding was initiated and enquiry held. Based on the evidence and finding of guilt, petitioner was served second show cause by the disciplinary authority and order of dismissal dated 22.10.2001 came to be passed by the Commandant which is annexure-4 to the writ application. The appeal of the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed by the D.I.G. of Police vide, his order dated 15.2.2003 (annexure-6) and finally even his memorial has been rejected by D.G-cum-I.G. of Police. The said order is annexure-7 to the writ application. Petitioner wants quashing of these orders and his reinstatement vide the present writ application. The fact behind initiation of the departmental proceeding is that B Company was deployed in the district of Jehanabad and the Company was on picket duty. On 1st March 2001, in the evening the petitioner along with one Bindeshwar - 2 - Singh went out of the camp on the pretext of having some tea. He came back in drunken state and started misbehaving with Hawildar Sachidanand Yadav. Thereafter he got into a fight without any provocation with one constable Manoj Kumar Singh. Other jawans and officers intervened and the matter was supposedly sorted out. But it was not so. The petitioner on pretext of trying to talk to Bindeshwar Singh took him inside the camp to the guard room, pulled out his rifle and fired five rounds in the air. Thereafter he stepped out. He challenged constable Manoj Kumar Singh and he alleged to have fired seven rounds again from the rifle. It was after much effort and sagacity of other members of the camp that the petitioner was made to surrender. The incidence was reported to the Officer Incharge of Sakurabad Police Station who came to the camp with a medical officer who examined the petitioner and certified that he was under the influence of liquor. The authority also received some complaints from one local village which is inhabited by persons belonging to Scheduled caste category. The petitioner used to visit the village and used to misbehave with their daughters and daughter-in-law. On resistance he used to threaten them with elimination by using the services of out-lawed organization. He also used to demand liquor and poultry etc. from the villagers. When they used to refuse he used to vandalise their property. The conduct of the petitioner also caught attention - 3 - of the media and the story was extensively published across the State which in the opinion of the authority of 14th Battalion of BMP compromised their image and also caused embarrassment. In this background a chargesheet was drawn up and proceeding initiated against the petitioner after his show cause was not found to be satisfactory. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised many an objections against the departmental proceeding and the order of punishment. His contention is that the order of punishment has been passed in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. He was not given proper opportunity to examine the defence witness. The order of dismissal passed against him is unfair and arbitrary if not in violation of Rule 826 of the Police Manual read with Appendix 49 paras 11 and 12. Since the doctor was not produced for cross-examination the report of the doctor could not be used against him. Even the charges were vague. They ought to have got the blood and urine tests of the petitioner done to finally establish that he was in a drunken state etc. etc. It is also the stand of the petitioner that the petitioner had good behaviour and he had earned many rewards. He has been framed and fixed on the basis of a private quarrel which he had with constable Manoj Kumar Singh and harsh punishment of dismissal has come to be passed. Most of the objections raised by the petitioner - 4 - against the departmental proceeding and the orders of punishment have been rebutted or denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. It is their stand that the petitioner was given fullest opportunity in the enquiry which was held against him. All the witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner. He chose to cross-examine some and ignore others. His objection that he was not given proper opportunity to examine his defence witness is also not true. Petitioner was given proper opportunity to produce the defence witness but since he did not produce any defence witness in his support, the respondents cannot be blamed for non- examination of defence witness. At the point of time petitioner had been provided all evidence and materials which came during course of enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished to him and he did file his detailed show cause before the disciplinary authority. The misconduct of the petitioner of his coming back to the camp in a drunken state and then entering into fight and arguments with other constables or Hawildar of the camp and indulging in indiscriminate firing are all proved in the enquiry. According to the respondents it was only providence that no life was lost. The incidence itself shows that the petitioner was not in his senses and he indulged in reckless behaviour, endangering life of many persons in the camp and causing breach of discipline of the highest order. Petitioner has raised objection that his blood and - 5 - urine samples were not tested to decisively prove that he was in a drunken state and that the report of the doctor was not good enough are matters which do not have serious reflection on the findings as the facts speak for itself against the petitioner. The narration in the charges brought against the petitioner, relating to his behaviour by itself is a decisive indicator that his conduct did not meet the test of a reasonable man. The departmental proceeding is not a criminal court. At the first instance the petitioner was physically examined by a medical officer, who visited the camp along with the Officer Incharge and he in his report did opine that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. A departmental enquiry is not an enquiry by a criminal court where the evidence and material must prove the guilt of the accused to the hilt. The narration of events for the day by itself shows that no person much less a person belonging to disciplined force would get into such a reckless behaviour of causing danger to the life of other colleagues and officers who were present on the camp. The disciplinary authority has taken a detailed note of the findings coupled with the charges and the evidence which came during the course of enquiry. In the totality of the materials and the conduct of the petitioner the disciplinary authority decided to impose the punishment of dismissal. The Court has gone through the materials brought - 6 - on record and has meticulously examined the decision passed by the disciplinary authority. In the opinion of the Court the disciplinary authority has been quite meticulous in going through the evidence and the findings and he rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner was guilty and nothing less than dismissal was warranted for the kind of behaviour in which the petitioner indulged. The issue was thereafter considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority as well as the D.G.- cum-I.G. of police did not find any infirmity with regard to departmental proceeding as well as the findings. The fact and the evidence being what it is, it cannot be said that the respondents were irrational or arbitrary in dismissing the petitioner for his conduct. The petitioner, in the opinion of the Court, is not fit to be retained in service in view of the findings and the seriousness of the charges which stood established against him in a full-fledged departmental enquiry. There is no infirmity in the impugned orders which requires interference. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)