SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 24.08.2011 passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate order passed on 02.02.2013, has approached this Court.

2. Brief facts as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner had been appointed as constable on 04.06.1986. While he was on duty at Rail Police, P.S. Chandrapura, he was given a duty to escort a train on 02.01.2011. It has been alleged that petitioner was not found on duty on this date and when enquired, it was found that the petitioner was sleeping in the barrack. It is also alleged that on 04.01.2011 in train No. 8608, Hatia Baidyanath Dham Express, he had misbehaved with a school going girl due to which image of Police has deteriorated and there was problem of law and order for which the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 06.01.2011. It has been submitted that thereafter ex-partie inquiry had been conducted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer without any cogent evidence has found the charged proved against him. He further submitted that without serving of second show cause notice, the order of dismissal has been passed by the disciplinary authority against which, petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority raising all the facts but even the appellate authority has not considered those aspects of the matter and upheld the order of dismissal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that copies of second show- cause notice along with enquiry report have not been supplied to him, as such there is violation of principle of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the allegation of the petitioner is very serious in nature, it is not expected from the man who has rendered 29 years of service in the Police Department behave in this manner with a school going girl in a train. It has further been submitted by counsel for the State that the petitioner has been provided all opportunities of being heard. Show cause was issued to the petitioner but he did not submit any reply. It has been further submitted that even after the conclusion of the inquiry, the second show cause was issued to him, which has been perused by the disciplinary authority, and thereafter, order of punishment has been imposed. Hence the principle of natural justice has not been violated. Thereafter, considering the nature of allegations, the order of punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon him.

6. Heard the parties.

7. The allegations leveled against the petitioner is that while on duty on 02.01.2011, he was assigned duty to escort a train but he was found absent and when searched out, he was found sleeping in barrack. The second allegation is that on 04.01.2011 in Train No. 8608 Hatia Baidyanath Dham Express, the petitioner misbehaved with a school going girl due to which the image of Police has deteriorated.

8. Against these allegations, a department proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner. From perusal of final order passed by the disciplinary authority, it appears that the show cause had been issued to petitioner but no reply had been submitted by him. Even after conclusion of the enquiry, second show-cause notice was given to petitioner of which petitioner duly replied. Ground which has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to him, in my view will not help any way to the petitioner because the petitioner previous to this litigation has not raised this point. In my view the submissions stated hereinabove has got no merit.

9. The disciplinary authority after perusing the copy of reply to second show cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report and the evidences of defence witnesses has come to a finding after accepting the finding of the enquiry officer that irregularities committed by petitioner is serious in nature and as such he is not fi