D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE Appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause -10 of the Letters Patent which is directed against the order impugned (sic) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 356 of 2002 on 26.3.2003 by which the prayer that was made by the Appellant for quashing the order of punishment dated 5.7.2001 awarded by the Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No. 2) in a proceeding and confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 13.10.2001, was dismissed.
(2.) THE short question which falls for consideration in the instant appeal is as to whether the action of the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority inflicting the punishment of stoppage of increment of the Appellant for six months and withholding his salary during the period he was put under suspension, except what he had received as subsistence allowance, was justified and maintainable on the stipulated charge? Precisely, the fact as reflected was that the Appellant Shambhu Saran Singh was posted as the in charge of the constables on guard in the bungalow of a sitting Judge of Patna High Court, with four other constables. An inspection was held on 11.4.2000 at 9.10 hours by the commandant wherein it was found that the constable No. 202 Ram Raj Singh was not there in the barrack of guards and on query the Appellant admitted having permitted the said constable to leave and to have his meal out side the premises, as their food was not being prepared in the barrack. The Appellant admitted that he had recorded such permission given to the constable in the register maintained in the barrack. The learned Counsel pointed out that on physical verification, the constable Ram Raj Singh was found taking his meal by a witness. His sentry duty was to begin at 10 O'clock for two hours whereas inspection was held on the same day at 9.10 hours. The Appellant was put under suspension contemplating a domestic proceeding with the imputation of charge that he had allowed the constable Ram Raj Singh to go for his meal outside the barrack when the Appellant had knowledge about the proposed inspection on the very day. One Shamlal Singh, a police officer of the rank of inspector, was appointed as Enquiry officer who exonerated the Appellant from the charge aforesaid, after examining the witnesses observing in the report that the Appellant had no knowledge about the time of inspection, otherwise he could not have allowed to leave the post and that the constable was not away during hours of his sentry duty.
(3.) THE matter was referred to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Respondent No. 2 for approval who reversed the finding of the Enquiry Officer' recorded on 29.3.2001 and inflicted punishment by stopping the increment of the Appellant herein for six months and by withholding his salary for the period of his suspension except what he had received as subsistence allowance.;