An intra companyrt appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned judgment.
This entry No.700 was recorded two times, on first time it was 8.45 and on second time it was at 9.30.
This Court issued a limited numberice stating Counsel submits that for the same misconduct a much lighter punishment was given to another companystable while the punishment of dismissal has been imposed on the petitioner.
Hence charge sheeted Constable and Constable 576 Kaushal Kumar Singh case is number similar.
A learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissed the said writ petition opining As a matter of fact, Babban Ram was deputed as orderly to the Deputy Commandant, whereas the petitioner was the Writer Constable who was responsible for the entry in the Register regarding Diet allowances and, therefore, the charges against the petitioner were grievous in nature and, as such, the punishment has been awarded to him companysidering the gravity of the charges.
Company Commanding Police Inspector Ram Bhakt Sahu was punished also.
I have carefully gone through the recommendation of the Conducting Officer as well as the order passed by the disciplinary authority as companytained in Annexure 4 to the writ application and also the order passed by the appellate authority as companytained in Annexure 8 and 8/1 to the writ application.
In the said appeal, one of the companytentions raised by the appellant was that in a departmental proceeding involving one Kaushal Kumar who was also found guilty of identical charges, a lenient view was taken.
The appointing authority, relying on the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed a final order on or about 31.8.1987 dismissing him from service.
I find that the learned disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have carefully examined the materials on record and after appreciation of evidence, they have companye to a definite finding on the basis of facts on record that the charges against the petitioner was fully established and, therefore, he was found to be guilty.
The petitioner has number been able to show that the findings arrived at by the respondents were perverse or number based on the materials on record and, therefore, I do number find any material to upset the findings arrived at by the respondents.
So far as the quantum of punishment is companycerned, I find that in view of the nature and gravity of the charge, which has been proved against the petitioner, the punishment for dismissal passed by the authorities companycerned also needs numberinterference by this Court.
Issue numberice on the application for companydonation of delay as also on the Special Leave Petition.
Constable Kaushal Kumar Singh has made an effort to raise a voice against the illegal act of companymanding officer of that time.
Appellate authority in its order dated 9.8.1989 in that behalf opined The illustration given by the charge sheeter companystable regarding other departmental proceeding No.22/87 of BMP 4 against companystable 576 Kaushal Kumar Singh is wrong.
He alsong with Constable No.576 Kaushal Kumar returned on 24.3.84, their arrival is shown on 26.3.85 at 9.00 a.m. On the voucher of food allowance for the said period payment was made and obtained which is a forgery.
He admitted the charges in relation to charge No.2.
He was found guilty of other charges also.
Appellant, challenging the legality of the said order, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna which was marked as CWJC No.9945 of 1996.
In the said departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of all the charges.
This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot substitute its own finding over the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and also the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.
An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
Arising out of SLP C No.3171 of 2007 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
Before opening the diary, companyumn in which details of Ohededar and officers are being filled, he shown presence of S.I. S Sahu at the companypany head quarter, but on the same day, as per the entry No.700 his arrival is shown at 8.45 Oclock.
Appellant herein was working as a writer companystable in the Bihar Military Police at Bokaro Steel City.
A Departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the following imputation of charges While he was posted in March 1985 in C Company made an entry in general diary with regard to arrival of S.I. S , R.B. Sahu, Company Commander on 28.3.1985.
Despite the same he shown his presence in Company Headquarter and claimed for food allowance and obtained the same.
From C Company Aurangabad he was directed by Command No.227376 with companystable 576 Kaushal Kumar and Vahini Mukhyalaya.
