Vijay Shankar Kasaip vs State of Bihar and Others

This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.4.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12316/92 whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

The Appellant was a constable. On 5.1.1988 he was on Sentry duty at the office-cum-residence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sadar. At about 6 P.M. he was intoxicated. He took rifle of another constable and fired twice. Departmental proceeding was initiated and charges were framed with respect to indiscipline, doubtful character, insubordination and acts of unbecoming of police personnel etc. Copy of charge was furnished to the Appellant. He filed show-cause. Thereafter, enquiry started. During course of enquiry three witnesses were examined. Those were Vijay Shankar Prasad, Babban Prasad and Ram Kirpal Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted its report holding the Appellant guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority dismissed the Appellant from service. The Appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed. He also filed memorial before the Director General of Police which was also dismissed. The Appellant being aggrieved by those orders filed writ petition as indicated above. The writ petition was also dismissed. The said order has been impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal.

The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant is that there is violation of rule of natural justice as he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no leg to stand. It appears from the record produced by learned Counsel for the Respondents that Vijay Shankar Prasad and Babban Prasad were examined in presence of the Appellant. The Appellant also received copy of the depositions. It further appears that Ram Kirpal Singh was examined but there is no endorsement that Appellant received copy of the deposition. At this stage it would not be out of place to mention herein that Ram Kirpal Singh is not witness to the incident. He held preliminary enquiry and found the incident true and accordingly referred the matter to the disciplinary authority who on the basis of said report initiated the proceeding. Even if it is accepted that Appellant was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine Ram Kirpal Singh, in our opinion, the proceeding would not vitiate because of the fact that he was not witness to the incident and also two material witnesses have fully supported the charges against the Appellant. In the counter-affidavit specific averment was made that there was no violation of rule of natural justice. He was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses but he did not cross-examine the witnesses. The said averment was not denied by the Appellant in his rejoinder. More-over, in the departmental proceeding the charges are not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as required in criminal case. The evidence of two witnesses brought on the record is convincing and trustworthy. Therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Further-more the Appellant was in uniform service i.e. police service and the charges which were framed against the Appellant were of indiscipline and were proved. In such a situation, such person cannot be allowed to remain in service.

Thus on consideration, as discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed but without cost.