ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment against which an appeal has been filed by the petitioner is, in fact, in his favour. The petitioner -appellant services were terminated by an order during the month of December on the allegation that amongst 72 rifles one rifle was missing. The petitioner - appellant faced two actions; one was departmental inquiry that a rifle was missing and second a first information report that there was a theft of a rifle.

(2.) IN so far as the first information report is concerned the petitioner was acquitted. But the fact that the petitioner - appellant was acquitted may not be relevant. Subsequently the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur itself placed a report that there was neither any theft nor a rifle was missing and there was a mistake in counting of rifles. This did not even leave any foundation for instituting a first information report because there was no theft.

(3.) IN so far as the writ petition is concerned the learned judge did give an order for reinstatement but observed that "consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to get all the benefits save and except the monetary benefits for the period he was out of service." This clearly is a manifest error apparent on the face of record. Once the learned judge had noticed the aspect that there was no mis -demeanour for which the petitioner -appellant ought to have faced a departmental inquiry and that the first information report had been instituted on a misunderstanding nothing remained.