Dwarika Nath Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18990 of 2008 =========================================================== Dwarika Nath Jha, s/o Late Bisheshwar Jha, r/v and P.O. - Loha, P.s. - Kaluahi, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Sahabad Region, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas

3. The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabhua

4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mohania, Kaimur at Bhabhua .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. BINDHYACHAL SINGH, Adv. Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Mr. Prashant Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha -SC-26 Mr. Subodh Kumar A.C. to S.C. - 26 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-02-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order, as contained in Memo No. 1793 dated 09.07.2008 at annexure-6. Facts which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner was posted, as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Bhabhua Police Station and he was the Investigating Officer of Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 160/2007, but the petitioner being the Investigating Officer of Bhabhua P.S. Case No. 160/2007 did not submit charge-sheet within time, as mandated under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P.C. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order, as contained in Memo No. 370 dated 09.04.2008 and a departmental

Patna High Court CWJC No.18990 of 2008 dt.04-02-2017 2/2 proceeding was initiated. The petitioner filed his show-cause and admitted his own fault, but at the same time, prayed to accept his apology. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted minor punishment by giving a 'Kalank' (black-mark) and the period of suspension of the petitioner was treated to be on leave. I do not find any procedural illegality in the departmental proceeding.

Learned counsel for the State also pointed out that the petitioner has not preferred appeal/revision against the order inflicting punishment against him. If the petitioner, so advised, may prefer statutory appeal or revision before the authority concerned. Having considered the facts, I find that the order impugned does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date NA