High CourtsDivision Bench(2003) 01 PAT CK 0067

Md. Ilias Khan vs State of Bihar and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 7 January 2003 · Citation: (2003) 51 BLJR 384 : (2003) 3 PLJR 52

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 480 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 308 words

Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. and R.N. Prasad, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order dated 22 February, 1995 on CWJC No. 7583 of 1993, Md. Ilias Khan v. State of Bihar and Ors.

2.

The petitioner-appellant was a Constabie in Dog squad, Centra! Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna. In the mid night of 5th April, 1986 he entered the police barrack in a drunken State and abused, assaulted and injured constable Subodh Prasad Mandal and some other Constables and Havildars. He also broke the bicycle of Robert Herrorian. The departmental proceedings were taken out against the petitioner and consequently on the conclusion of the proceedings he was dismissed from service.

3.

The petitioner-appellant on his writ petition was seeking relief that the enquiry had been improper as essential documents have not been given to him and the punishment awarded is too harsh regard being had to the circumstances that he was 19 years in service.

4.

The learned Judge was not inclined to interfere with the punishment given to the petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed.

5.

Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The argument before this Court is rather unusual. The contention on behalf of the petitioner-appellant is that the petitioner was in drunken State but not on duty and in the circumstances this could not be considered as a misdemeanour in service. The Court is not impressed by this argument. Whether it is a Constable or an officer, at every given time, a person in uniform, is supposed to be on good conduct. The petitioner admits that he was drunk perhaps not on duty but in the barrack. Barrack is not a place for being drunk.

6.

The Court has no reason to differ from the order of the learned Judge. The appeal is misconceived.

7.

The appeal is dismissed.