Purendra Nath Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11868 of 2008 =========================================================== Purendra Nath Singh, son of late Ram Kishore Singh, resident of Village - Bhadyan, P S - Mofussil, District - Bhojpur at Ara, presently posted at Police H.Q. Sitamarhi on the post of Sub Inspector .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary.
2. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. Deputy Inspector General, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi.
6. Dr. Chaurrasia Chandrashekhar Azad, Deputy Superintendent of Police cum Conducting Officer, Sitamarhi District.
7. Mritunjay Kumar Yadav, Block Development Officer, Block Bokhara, District - Sitamarhi.
8. Shiv Shankar Jha, Sub Inspector, Nanpur Police Station, District - Sitamarhi.
9. Raj Kishore Singh, Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bokhara, Block Bokhara, District - Sitamarhi.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. NIRMAL KUMAR SINHA 3 Mr. Arun Kumar Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr. D K Sinha, AAG2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-04-2015 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
2. It is clear that there is finding of guilt emerging against the petitioner with regard to the charge. I think that the disciplinary authority has taken a very mild view of the seriousness of omission on the part of the petitioner, who has failed to perform his duty as an honest police officer.
3. The minimum of punishment which could be given has been given. If it has not come in the way, petitioner can be exonerated for any wrong doing whatsoever.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11868 of 2008 dt.23-04-2015 2 / 2
4. Writ application is dismissed as no interference is warranted with the punishment order.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/- U