Patna High CourtL.P.A/1875/2015dismissed

The State Of Bihar And ORS v. Sidheshwar Rai

2017-01-25Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1875 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9438 of 2011 ===========================================================

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Inspector General of Police, Railway, Patna.

4. DIG, Railway, Bihar, Patna.

5. DIG, Rail Zone, Bihar.

6. Superintendent of Police, Railway, Patna.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Sidheshwar Rai Son of Late Parma Rai Resident of Village and Post Office - Dhanchhuha, P.S. - Chawei, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA-11 For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 25-01-2017 Though the Court is not convinced with the reason assigned in paragraph 3 of the condonation application, but in the interest of justice, I.A. No. 8442 of 2015 is allowed. The delay of 215 days is condoned.

2. Heard the counsel for the appellants and perused the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. In totality of the facts and circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly come to a conclusion that it was one of those cases where punishment of dismissal ought to be revisited may be

Patna High Court LPA No.1875 of 2015 dt.25-01-2017 2/2 compulsory retirement etc.

4. The ball is in the Court of Appellate Authority to deal with the matter, especially when the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the decision and the finding of guilt of the private respondent and necessity of some punishment.

5. Since a wide platform of discretion in decision making has been given to the appellants, Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9438 of 2011.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 28.01.2017 Transmission Date NA