Virender Singh, J.

Being aggrieved of order dated 15.01.2015 handed down in W.P.(S) No. 743 of 2009 whereby, the writ petition stands dismissed, the appellant writ petitioner (for short “petitioner”) has moved this Court through the medium of instant Letters Patent Appeal which is at admission stage.

2. The appellant was booked in a criminal case under Sections 302, 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and he was suspended on 03.12.1984 as, he was arrested in the said criminal case along with 11 co-accused persons. After he got bail from the concerned court, the suspension order was revoked in February, 1985. The trial of the said criminal case culminated into conviction of the petitioner and 11 co-accused in April, 1991 under Sections 302, 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, being aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal in the High Court being Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 104 of 1991. However, after the petitioner was convicted along with 11 co-accused, a show cause notice was served upon him and vide order dated 18.06.2005 he was dismissed from service. It needs to be mentioned here that at that time the appeal filed by him was still pending in the High Court which was ultimately partly allowed by setting aside the conviction of the petitioner for the main charge of Section 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and he instead was found guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/. Admittedly, the petitioner has not thrown challenge to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in aforesaid Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 104 of 1991.

3. After the disposal of the aforesaid criminal appeal, the petitioner knocked the door of this Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 3148 of 2007 seeking his reinstatement in service which petition ultimately came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2008 directing the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa (respondent no. 2 therein) to consider the application/representation of the petitioner in right perspective to decide his claim by passing a reasoned order within stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation before the concerned authority which ultimately was dismissed vide order dated 17.07.2008 which once again gave him a cause to knock the door of the Writ Court through the medium of writ petition [W.P. (S) No. 743 of 2008], which now stands dismissed.

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

5. Mr. P. A. S. Pati, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that may be the petitioner has not challenged his conviction now recorded under Section 324 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. he, after the main charge of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code being diluted to a lessor gravity, is entitled to have a relief of lessor punishment by the Department. In short, the learned counsel wants to impress upon the Court that the punishment of dismissal from service in the present set of circumstance is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Hazarilal”, reported as (2008) 3 SCC 273 in which case also, the respondent therein was convicted under Section 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 500/and ultimately the Tribunal had given a direction to the authority concerned to consider the case appropriately in the peculiar facts of the said case which order was ultimately confirmed by the High Court and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that in the said case also, the provision as contained in Rule 170 of Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 which are parimateria to Rule 15 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Ru