D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patel Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 498 of 2007 dated 5th July, 2011, whereby the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the departmental appellate authority dated 20th August, 2005 and 26th May, 2006 respectively for the dismissal of this appellant have been confirmed and, therefore, the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that the enquiry report has not been supplied to this delinquent -appellant. The alleged misconduct is of bigamy, charge -sheet was issued, enquiry was conducted and the charges were proved, Enquiry Officer has given a report, but, the copy whereof was never supplied to this appellant. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that non -seeking of permission of the higher officers in police department under Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1976 as well as under Rule 707(a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual does not mean that the services of this appellant can be terminated by the respondents.
(3.) The appellant has served for 21 long years and hence, the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and the same may be converted into compulsory retirement. This is an alternative argument canvassed by the counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decisions reported in (1985) 1 SCC 120, (2011) 8 SCC 536 and (2003) 8 SCC 9. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted that looking to the length of services rendered by this appellant, even if this Court comes to a conclusion that the charges levelled against him are proved, then also, instead of dismissal from the service, the punishment imposed upon this appellant may be reduced to compulsory retirement, so that this appellant can get retiral dues.;