Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.)THE petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of penalty dated 27.11.1998, the appellate order dated 24.07.2001, the order dated 16.02.2003 passed in the Memorial and the order dated 07.07.2004 passed on the representation preferred by this petitioner, pursuant to order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1999 (P). The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner was suspended on 02.12.1996 and a charge memo dated 30.09.1997 was served on the allegations that on 24.11.1996, he assaulted one Rameshwar Pandit and caused grievous injuries to him and he remained absent for more than three months unauthorisedly. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and on conclusion of the enquiry, a report was submitted holding the charges against the petitioner proved. Second show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.10.1998 and after considering the materials on record, the penalty order dated 27.11.1998 was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. Petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 24.07.2001 and the Memorial preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 16.02.2003. Pursuant to order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11664 of 1999 (P), the petitioner preferred representation to the authorities, which was dismissed by order dated 07.07.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.)A counter -affidavit has been filed stating as under:
6. That the grounds set forth in paragraph No. 2 of the writ application under reply are not tenable. It is submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty for such conduct which is unbecoming of a policemen. For such proved charges there is no bar in passing final order in departmental proceeding.

It is submitted that the injury report is one of the exhibits but not only the injury report is the sole evidence to prove the charge, but the command certificate issued by the Guard Commander to Sepoy Rameshwar Pandit for the local Health Centre, for treatment of injuries to the person of the latter (Rameshwar Pandit), the discharge slip of Sadar Hospital, Pakur, the preliminary enquiry report of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ajit Kumar etc. also are the parts of evidence which have collectively proved charge No. 1 against the petitioner in departmental proceeding No. 13/97 of J.A.P. -III.

It is stated that the charge was framed for petitioner guilty of assaulting his colleague Sepoy 40, Rameshwar Pandit and inflicting injuries simple as well as grievous on him and also for the guilty of willful absence without any authority for more than three months. It is wrong that the charge was framed for petitioner's absence during his suspension.

It is submitted that the conducting officer directed the petitioner twice to produce his defence witness vide orders dated 02.07.1998 and 05.07.1998 and therefore, the petitioner has been given ample opportunity to produce witness in his defence and therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Defence witnesses were not examined by the conducting officer is wrong.

9. That in reply to statement made in paragraph No. 5 of the writ application under reply, it is stated that it is fact that a criminal case against the petitioner was registered for the said first charge only. The case refers to Litipara Police Station (Pakur district) Case No. 50/96 dated 24.11.1996 under Section 323, 341, 337, 379 of Indian Penal Code. But in the departmental proceeding there is one charge more and that is petitioner's willful unauthorized absence for more than three months. The petitioner was found guilty of a conduct which is not appropriate for becoming of policeman.

10. That in reply to statement made in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated that it is true that the Doctor issuing injury report was not produced for cross -examination. Injury report and hospital discharge slip were never disbelieved and it was never questioned by the petitioner during conduction of proceeding or at any stage. So the injury report is not the only basis for finding the petitioner's guilty. There is strong evidence to prove that the petitioner assaulted his colleague sepoy 40, Rameshwar Pandit and caused injuries to him for which the latter had been admitted to hospital for treatment. Reference of the Apex Court decision, as cited by the petitioner, is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.)LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that in view of charges levelled against the petitioner, and the findings recorded, the order of penalty of dismissal from service is definitely excessive and disproportionate to the charges framed and found proved against the petitioner. He further submits that the specific defence of the petitioner that the said Rameshwar Pandit had pointed his rifle at him and when he ran away Rameshwar Pandit chased him and fell down and thus got injured, has not been verified either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority and on that count alone ultimate conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, is erroneous and requires interference by this Court.