Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 13.9.97 by which he was dismissed from service w.e.f. 31.8.97; the appellate order dated 13.11.97 and order passed in memorial dated 27.4.98. 2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. The petitioner was functioning as a permanent constable under the respondent-State and was posted in the Rail Police Centre, Patna. The Dy.S.P. (Railway), Patna made a complaint against him on 31.7.96. It was alleged that on 30.7.1996, while he was coming by Shramjeevi Express and reached Patna at 7 a.m. on 30.7.96, found the petitioner checking railway tickets from one of the passengers in platform no.1. When he asked the petitioner his identity, the petitioner kept mum. Alongwith the said Dy.S.P., two constable, namely, Biswanath Sharma and Ram Bachan Kumar, who were there, were asked to take the petitioner alongwith them but the petitioner ran away by crossing railway line. The aforesaid constable and Havildar Indrajeet Mandal later on told him the name of petitioner, who is posted at Patna Junction. It was reported that he has come to know that he is absent from police line, showing him sick. It was further intimated that in the morning trains like Punjab Mail, Maurya Express, Poorva Express, 11 Up, Shramjeevi Express, Magadh Express, this type of constable in collusion with T.Cs. in absence of T.T. Es., collected money from passengers. Sometimes constable and Havildar of outside also come to the Patna Junction Platform and check tickets of passengers. Presently large number of R.P.F., Constable and Havildar are found checking tickets alongwith T.Cs. On receipt of such report, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.7.96 and chargesheet was also served on him Vide Memo no. 747 dated 31.7.96. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that though petitioner was posted in the Rly. Police Centre, Patna on 30.7.96 at 7 a.m., he was found checking ticket from passengers, who came out of Shramjeevi Express, and was caught by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Dy.S.P. (Rail), Patna (West). On query, he could not give satisfactory reply. 747 dated 31.7.96. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that though petitioner was posted in the Rly. Police Centre, Patna on 30.7.96 at 7 a.m., he was found checking ticket from passengers, who came out of Shramjeevi Express, and was caught by Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Dy.S.P. (Rail), Patna (West). On query, he could not give satisfactory reply. It was alleged that in spite of specific order that no constable will roam unnecessary in the platform in plain dress, the petitioner violated the order and in plain dress worked as T.T.E. in platform no.1 and was found checking tickets. The aforesaid action shows doubtful integrity and dereliction of duty. An enquiry officer was appointed to hold enquiry. Before the enquiry officer, the petitioner did not choose to submit his written statement of defence. In absence of the same, the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex parte, and examined the witnesses. The petitioner at the closure of enquiry, submitted his written statement denying the charges whereinafter the enquiry officer submitted his report on 30.6.97. The enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The respondents thereafter issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner whereinafter the impugned order of punishment was passed on 23.9.97. The S.P. (Rail), Patna dismissed the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.8.1997 (retrospective date). It was also ordered that the petitioner will not receive any amount for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance received. The appeal and memorial, thereafter preferred by petitioner, were also dismissed vide orders dated 13.11.97 and 27.4.1998. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed taking into account certain allegations which were not the part of the chargesheet. Without giving any opportunity in respect of such allegations, the impugned order was passed. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. H.C. Goel (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364) and also decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General of Court Martial and others vs. Col. Anilteg Singh Dhaliwal [1988 (1) S.C.C. 756]. 4. At this stage, it is partinent to mention that for same allegation of checking ticket as T.T.E., another proceeding being case no. 33/96 was initiated against the petitioner which was pending for final decision. Anilteg Singh Dhaliwal [1988 (1) S.C.C. 756]. 4. At this stage, it is partinent to mention that for same allegation of checking ticket as T.T.E., another proceeding being case no. 33/96 was initiated against the petitioner which was pending for final decision. It appears that the enquiry officer has also held the petitioner guilty in the other case (case no. 33/96). For the said reason, the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of dismissal on 23.9.97, took into consideration the report submitted in the aforesaid enquiry and passed the present impugned order. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Dy.S.P. (Rail), Patna in his complaint made on 31.7.1996, while reported that petitioner was checking railway ticket, also stated that another constable Ganga Sagar Singh was with him though such allegation was made against Ganga Sagar Singh, in the enquiry, he has not been inflicted major punishment like dismissal from service. It is only because the enquiry report of another enquiry was taken into consideration, without opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal was passed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Director General of Police and others vs. G. Dasayan [ 1998 (2) S.C.C. 407 ]. 6. The respondents in their counter- affidavit opposed the contention made on behalf of the petitioner. According to them, the enquiry was conducted giving full opportunity to the petitioner and report was submitted taking into consideration the evidence on record and statement made by witnesses. The petitioner did not choose to appear in the enquiry to cross examine the witness for which he himself is responsible. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without any prejudice and malice. The petitioner having found guilty and the charge being grave, the order of dismissal was rightly passed. 7. From the defence as was taken by petitioner, it appears that he stated that he was in the police line on 31.7.1996 at 7 a.m. and shown at the time of roll-call. In the aforesaid circumstances, he cannot be stated to be present in the Patna Railway Station on 30.7.1996. The enquiry officer while took into consideration the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, discarded such statement for the reasons as shown in the enquiry report. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, he cannot be stated to be present in the Patna Railway Station on 30.7.1996. The enquiry officer while took into consideration the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the petitioner, discarded such statement for the reasons as shown in the enquiry report. 8. At this stage, I may mention that the aforesaid defence taken on behalf of petitioner, prima facie, cannot be accepted as the allegation related to an incidence as took place at 7 a.m. on 30.7.1996 but petitioner gave explanation relating to his presence in the police line at 7 a.m. on 31.7.1996 (the next date). Nothing was stated with regard to his presence at 7 a.m. on 30.7.1996 (the date of incidence). Now the question arises as to whether any relief can be granted in favour of petitioner in view of the fact that the enquiry was conducted after giving opportunity to him, in accordance with law and the petitioner was held to be guilty by the enquiry officer. It is true that while passing an order of punishment, the authorities are not supposed to take into consideration any other act of omission and commission, which is not the part of the chargesheet. The decision, as referred by the counsel for the petitioner and shown above can be referred in this context. Now the question arises as to whether the disciplinary authority took into consideration any other act of omission and commission while passing the impugned order of dismissal. 9. From the dismissal order dated 23.9.1997 (Annexure-B), it will be evident that the enquiry officer dealt the charges as were levelled against the petitioner and held the petitioner guilty of such charge taking into consideration the enquiry report and the evidence on record. However, while dealing with the matter, he has also taken into consideration the allegation as made in the other departmental proceeding no. 33/96. It appears from the order of dismissal that in other proceeding being case no. 33/96, the enquiry officer has submitted report. In normal course, it is to be presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of such proceeding and the charges. It will be also presumed that the enquiry officer has submitted report, on hearing the petitioner. Thereby, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had no knowledge in respect to other similar allegation for which another departmental proceeding is pending. In normal course, it is to be presumed that the petitioner had knowledge of such proceeding and the charges. It will be also presumed that the enquiry officer has submitted report, on hearing the petitioner. Thereby, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had no knowledge in respect to other similar allegation for which another departmental proceeding is pending. If the authority while dealing the charge and matter of punishment, for determination of quantum of punishment takes into consideration the other action on the part of the charged employee, I find no illegality in the same. It cannot be alleged that the punishment order is based on the other charges, which were not the part of the chargesheet. 10. In the aforesaid circumstances, I hold that the cases as cited by the counsel for the petitioner reported in A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 364 and 1998 (1) S.C.C. 756 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, the charges being grave and as it appears that for similar charge, another departmental proceeding has been initiated, enquiry officer has submitted report holding the petitioner guilty for other similar charge, even if there remains any technical defect in the order of dismissal, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under writ jurisdiction, except that the order of dismissal should be treated to be prospective i.e. w.e.f. 23.9.1997. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with the aforesaid observations.