Patna High CourtCWJC/147/2017dismissed

Bishnu Shankar Azad No. 035203823 v. The Union Of India And ORS

2017-09-12Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.147 of 2017 =========================================================== Bishnu Shankar Azad No.- 035203823 constable, son of Sri Laxmi Narayan, resident of Mohalla- Nehru Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Buxar, District- Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Block No- CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi.

3. The Special D.G. Central Zone, C.R.P.F., Salt Lake, Kolkata (W.B.).

4. The Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Jharkhand Centre, Ranchi.

5. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

6. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Muzaffarpur, Bihar.

7. The Commandant 94 Batalian, Central Reserve Police, Khunti, Jharkhand. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Shara, ASG =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-09-2017 Heard Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India.

The petitioner has been dismissed from service on grounds of misconduct. Throughout the enquiry he has not bothered to participate and there is not a single document on record which would suffice whether the petitioner sought permission for postponement of the proceeding or bothered to get his leave extended.

Obviously the Disciplinary Authority in such circumstances would have no other option but to conclude the

Patna High Court CWJC No.147 of 2017 dt.12-09-2017 proceeding on the basis of materials on record which has been done by the Disciplinary Authority but not before giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure 3 would confirm this position that at every stage the petitioner was informed and given opportunity to rebut by leading evidence. However the petitioner failed to avail of the opportunity. The order also confirms that number of witnesses were examined including the complainant and who supported the misconduct by the petitioner.

In the circumstances the conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority recorded at paragraph 5 of the dismissal order dated 22.8.2012 as affirmed by the Appellate and Revisional Authority warrants no interference.

In fact considering the conduct of the petitioner through the proceedings, this Court is not persuaded to grant him indulgence. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15-09-2017 Transmission Date NA